Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) seeking anticipatory bail in a road rage, case wherein the FIR was registered against him for the offence under Section 110/127(2)/351(3)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Girish Kathpalia, J. stated that granting anticipatory bail in the case of broad daylight violence of the present nature at a public place would send wrong signals across the society that the aggressor took law in his own hands and walked free just because he happened to be an advocate. All are equal in the eyes of law, and none can be treated as more equal. The Court stated that if such relief was granted to the accused, it would also malign the noble profession of advocacy.
The Court stated that the present case was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused and accordingly, dismissed the application.
Background
On 19-2-2025, at about 3:30 pm, when the victim reached a location, the passage was blocked by a man with his white ciaz car. After some time, a black SUV came behind the victim, leaving him immobilized from both ends. Upon blowing of horn by the victim, the driver from the said white car came out and started abusing him. Meanwhile, the man in the SUV came out, disclosed his name ‘X’ and stated that he was the President of Bajrang Wahini Dal. He also challenged the victim that it being his area, he needed to be taught a lesson.
‘X’ along with the accused, who was a practicing advocate took the victim inside the house and started assaulting him with kicks and fists. The driver of the white car also came out and all three of them continued to assault the victim. They even brought lath and beat him on his head leaving him in a pool of blood. Meanwhile, the victim apologized to them after which they left the spot, threatening to get him arrested on false accusations. Subsequently, the local police arrived at the spot and shifted the victim to the AIIMS Trauma Centre.
The counsel for the accused contended that it was at the most a case of mere road age, for which the accused should not be denied liberty, especially since he was a practicing advocate and was cooperating with the investigating officer.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that it is unable to agree with the submission of accused’s counsel. As in the present case, the victim suffered multiple injuries including a head injury which could have turned fatal. Quite often, it was observed that road rage leads to many serious offences to the extent of human lives. Further, the Court stated that one of the assailants being a President of political organization and other being an advocate, were responsible members of the society, so must have ensure not to take law in their hands.
The Court also stated that after seeing the CCTV footage , it would not be appropriate to comment on the incident in detail. However, it was sufficient to record that one had to watch those footages of CCTV to fully understand the magnitude of the broad daylight violence in the public place.
The Court stated that granting anticipatory bail in the case of broad daylight violence of the present nature at a public place would send wrong signals across the society that the aggressor took law in his own hands and walked free just because he happened to be an advocate. All are equal in the eyes of law, and none can be treated as more equal. The Court stated that if such relief was granted to the accused, it would also malign the noble profession of advocacy.
The Court stated that road rage is not mere road rage. It had wide ranging ramifications in the form of not just physical injury, but the psychological dent caused by the victim. Quite often, it was seen that road rage leads to the loss of human lives as well. The damage caused gets aggrandized when one of the aggressors was a lawyer while the other was a President of a political organization.
Since it is the complete prerogative of the investigator to arrest or not to arrest an accused person, the Court clarified that this order should not be read as directions to the police to arrest the accused. The Court further clarified that nothing observed in this order should be kept in consideration by the Trial Court at the stage of final decision of the trial. Additionally, the Court stated that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused and dismissed the application.
[Raj Kumar Chaudhary v. State (NCT Of Delhi), Bail Appln. 1859 of 2025, decided on 15-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate with Dhan Mohan, Tanisha Bhatia, Atin Chadha and Munisha Chadha, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State with SI Saurabh, PS Neb Sarai.
