'Broad Daylight Violence': Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer In Road Rage Case, Says All Equal In Eyes Of Law
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of causing serious injuries to a man in a road rage case, emphasizing that all are equal in the eyes of law and none can be treated as more equal. Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that of such relief is granted to the accused lawyer, it would malign the noble profession of advocacy. The Court further observed that...
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of causing serious injuries to a man in a road rage case, emphasizing that all are equal in the eyes of law and none can be treated as more equal.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that of such relief is granted to the accused lawyer, it would malign the noble profession of advocacy. The Court further observed that granting anticipatory bail in "broad daylight violence" at a public place would send "wrong signals across the society" that the aggressor took law in hands and "walked free just because he happens to be an advocate".
“Road rage is not mere road rage. It has wide ranging ramifications in the form of not just physical injury but the psychological dent caused on the victim. Quite often, it is seen that road rage leads to loss of human lives as well,” the Court said.
The FIR was registered against the lawyer and his accomplices. The complaint was lodged by the victim, a software engineer by profession.
As per the FIR, the lawyer and his brother, President of Bajrang Wahini Dal, who were both in a black SUV car abused the victim who was on a two wheeler, threw him on the ground, beaten him with fists and kicks. The driver of another car also came out and assaulted the victim, it was alleged.
The complainant further alleged that the lawyer and his brother took him inside their house, assaulted him and caused multiple injuries including a bleeding head injury.
It was the lawyer's case that it was at the most a case of mere road rage for which he be not denied liberty, especially because he was a practicing advocate and was cooperating with the investigating officer.
The Court rejected the lawyer's submission that a case of road rage is a mere road rage. It was observed that in the present case, the victim suffered multiple injuries including a head injury which could turn fatal.
“Quite often, it is seen that road rage leads to much serious offences to the extent of loss of human lives. The other submission related to profession of the accused/applicant, the accused/applicant being an advocate, is all the more a reason for him to ensure upholding of law and order,” the Court said.
“One of the assailants being President of a political organization and the other being an advocate (the accused/applicant) were responsible members of the society, so must have ensured not to take law in their hands,” it added
Title: RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 561