The Delhi High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail request of a practicing lawyer accused in a serious road rage incident. The court highlighted that everyone is equal under the law and no one should be given special treatment because of their profession.
Justice Girish Kathpalia stated that granting pre-arrest bail to an advocate involved in violent conduct would damage the reputation of the legal profession. He warned that such a decision could send a wrong message to society that individuals, especially those with influential backgrounds, can break the law and still avoid consequences.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Trademark Registered Abroad Doesn’t Guarantee Registration in India
“Road rage is not mere road rage. It has wide-ranging effects, not just physical but also psychological on the victim. Often, it even leads to loss of life,” the court noted.
According to the FIR, the victim, a software engineer, was attacked by the lawyer, his brother—President of Bajrang Wahini Dal—and others while he was riding a two-wheeler. They allegedly abused him, pushed him to the ground, and beat him with fists and kicks. Another person from a nearby vehicle also joined the assault.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Online Job Scam Case, Cites Need for Custodial Interrogation
The situation escalated when the lawyer and his brother reportedly dragged the victim into their house and continued to assault him, causing multiple injuries, including a head injury that resulted in heavy bleeding.
The lawyer, in his defense, claimed that the incident was a minor case of road rage and argued that he had cooperated with the investigation. He also stated that he should be granted relief considering his status as a practicing advocate.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Patent Controller Must Clearly Name Known Substance in Hearing Notice
The court firmly rejected these arguments, stressing that the gravity of the injuries could have led to more serious outcomes. It also pointed out that being an advocate is not a reason for leniency; in fact, such professionals are expected to set an example by upholding the law.
“One of the attackers is the President of a political group, and the other is an advocate. As responsible members of society, they should not have taken the law into their own hands,” the court observed.
Case Title: RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE
