Would malign a noble profession: Delhi High Court denies lawyer anticipatory bail in road rage case

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to an advocate who was accused of attacking a man out of road rage along with a politician friend [Raj Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi]..Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that granting anticipatory bail would send a wrong message to society.“Granting anticipatory bail in the broad daylight violence of the present nature 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," the judge observed. .If the Court granted relief to the accused advocate, it would malign the noble profession of advocacy, Justice Kathpalia added. "All are equal in the eyes of law and none can be treated as more equal. Such relief, if granted to the accused/applicant would also malign the noble profession of advocacy,” the Court stated. .According to the first information report (FIR), the advocate and his politician friend became enraged at a man (victim) for blocking the road. They are accused of having dragged the victim to their house and beaten him with fists and a lathi, thereby causing multiple injuries. It was alleged by the victim that the advocate also threatened to get him arrested in a false case. The advocate approached the High Court for pre-arrest bail in this case after the Sessions Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea. .The High Court, however, also declined to grant him anticipatory bail. It noted that the victim had sustained multiple grievous injuries due to the beating, including a head injury which could turn fatal. “So far as the injuries allegedly suffered by the victim complainant de facto, nature of the same has been opined to be grievous in the MLC. The head injury, which is a lacerated wound and according to learned senior counsel for accused/applicant not possible with lath blow, it has to be kept in mind that the injury was on parietal scalp where the skin is in direct touch with the bone,” the Court observed. .While rejecting arguments made on behalf of the accused advocate, the Court stated that his profession was all the more reason for him to ensure that law and order was upheld. The alleged aggressors, being an advocate and the President of a political organization, should have been more responsible, the Court opined. “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 (they) must have ensured not to take law in their hands,” the Court stated. .Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail..Senior Advocate Amit Chadha with advocates Dhan Mohan, Tanisha Bhatia, Atin Chadha and Munisha Chadha appeared for the accused advocate. Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha appeared for the State..[Read order]