The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to advocate Vikas Yadav, who is accused in a case involving the alleged assault of a woman and her family members, including the public disrobing of her son. Justice Girish Kathpalia held that Yadav, who had been declared a proclaimed offender, had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting protection from arrest.
Background
The case arose from an incident on January 2, 2026, at a property in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, where the complainant, Smt. Rita Garg, operated a gym in the basement of her residence. According to the prosecution, a dispute concerning access to the basement escalated into an alleged physical assault involving several people.
The complaint alleged that Rajesh Garg was beaten with fists, kicks and a gym rod, while Rita Garg was allegedly assaulted and molested when she attempted to intervene. Their son, Vasu Garg, was allegedly assaulted and stripped of his clothes in public. Medical records referred to a fracture of Rajesh Garg's right jaw, while CCTV footage of the incident was played before the Court.
Yadav sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 04/2026, registered at Laxmi Nagar police station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution opposed his application, arguing that he had failed to comply with repeated notices and that his custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the missing CCTV digital video recorder (DVR).
Justice Kathpalia examined whether the circumstances justified granting anticipatory bail despite Yadav's status as a proclaimed offender. The Court clarified that such a person is not automatically barred from receiving anticipatory bail, but exceptional circumstances must be established.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed that the relief may be considered in exceptional cases where the material indicates that no prima facie case is made out against the accused.
The judgment noted that the allegations, medical records and CCTV footage required serious consideration. The Court also rejected the argument that Yadav's profession as an advocate, by itself, justified granting him protection from arrest.
The Court observed:
"Of course, all advocates, being officers of the court, deserve respect. But that tenet cannot be extended to an advocate, who indulges in such brazen lawlessness, that too publicly and with such impunity."
The Court further considered the investigation team's efforts to locate Yadav and the fact that the order declaring him a proclaimed offender had not been stayed. It also accepted the prosecution's submission that custodial interrogation was genuinely required to recover the missing gym CCTV DVR.
Finding no exceptional circumstances to grant relief, Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed Yadav's anticipatory bail application and the accompanying applications on October 28, 2026.
