Supreme Court: While deliberating over this matter wherein several employees (petitioners) working at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway, Barabanki, were arrested for allegedly assaulting an advocate (complainant) over refusal to pay toll; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., grimly noted that members of the bar at Barabanki had indulged into hooliganism against the advocate who had filed the bail application on behalf of the petitioners.
Condemning the lawyers’ actions in strict words, the Court deemed it fit release the petitioners on bail upon furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. The Court further directed transfer of the case to Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, to ensure that the petitioners get proper legal representation and a fair trial.
Background and Contentions
The petitioners are contractual employees of Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., who were posted for toll collection duty at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh. On 14 January 2026, the complainant, allegedly refused to pay the requisite toll charges while passing through the said toll plaza. Consequently, a verbal spat ensued between the complainant and the toll plaza staff, which subsequently escalated into a scuffle. It was alleged that the petitioners, being the employees of the operating company and posted at the toll plaza, assaulted the complainant.
Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the petitioners at the instance of the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioners contended that grounds for were not communicated to them at the time of arrest. It was further submitted that after the incident, members of Bar Association started violent protests with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh joining the fray by addressing letter to the Chief Minister requesting invocation of the provisions of National Security Act against the petitioners.
The petitioners further submitted that a resolution was circulated to the effect that no advocate should represent the petitioners. Notwithstanding this resolution, one advocate filed a bail application on behalf of the petitioners. Shortly thereafter, the members of the Bar resorted to unruly behaviour, and the office furniture of the said advocate was set on fire, and his effigy was also burnt. This incident was covered by several national newspapers.
The petitioners thereafter contended that the aforestated actions by the members of the bar created an atmosphere of fear, thereby dissuading advocates from Barabanki and nearby places from representing the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have been deprived of access to legal remedies in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Court’s Assessment
Perusing the matter, the Court strictly remarked that Members of the District Bar Association, Barabanki turned into perpetrators of violence. The Court further remarked that legal profession, which was once regarded as a noble profession, has clearly been tainted and tarnished by the acts of hooliganism perpetrated pursuant to the fracas which took place at the toll plaza. “We can understand the sentiment of fraternity amongst the lawyers but that, by no means, can justify the acts of violence and lawlessness which ensued when a brave lawyer came forward to defend the accused”. The Court stated that these deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be deprecated, hence the Court emphasised that the Bar Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps in this regard.
Perusing the FIR, the Court noted that there is no dispute that the petitioners were performing their duties at the toll plaza where the incident happened. The Court further stated that there may be a possibility that the complainant may have resisted the attempt of the petitioners in demanding toll resulting into a spat.
Therefore, in view of the aforestated circumstances, the Court opined that denial of bail to the petitioners and the curtailment of their liberty for a period exceeding two months is absolutely unjustified and violative of the fundamental Right of Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Condemning the hooliganism of the lawyers, the Court transferred the case to Tis Hazari Courts to ensure fair trial and directed that the petitioners be released on bail. The Court further directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh will be responsible for the safety and security of the petitioners, and shall ensure that upon their release on bail, the petitioners are duly escorted to a safe location.
[Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) NO(S). 109 OF 2026, decided on 17-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Md. Asif Iqbal, Adv. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bansal, Adv.
