'Don't want wrong signals to go out': Delhi HC junks lawyer's pre-arrest bail plea in road rage case

New Delhi: Refusing to grant bail to a lawyer in a case of road rage, the Delhi High Court has said granting the relief for "broad daylight violence" in a public place would send "wrong signals" to society that the aggressor walked free because of his profession.

Justice Girish Kathpalia said all were equal in the eyes of the law and granting the relief of pre-arrest bail would "malign the noble profession of advocacy".

"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. 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 said on May 15.

The accused and his brother, who has political ties, allegedly assaulted in February a software engineer who was on his way to Deoli Road on a two-wheeler.

The victim sustained injuries in what the accused termed was "mere road rage".

The court, however, disagreed it was a case of "mere road rage" and referred to the CCTV footage to "fully understand the magnitude of the broad daylight violence in the public place" by the accused and his brother who were "both powerful persons of the society".

The judge noted that the victim also suffered a head injury which could have turned fatal.

The court noted "road rage is not mere road rage" as it has wide ranging ramifications in the form of physical injury and psychological dent on the victim and quite often results in loss of lives.

In the present case, the court said, damage was aggrandised on account of the assailants being an advocate and the president of a political organisation, who were responsible members of the society and must have ensured not to take law in their hands.

Observing the investigating officer specifically expressed the need to carry out custodial interrogation to recover the assault weapon and probe further, the court held it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. PTI ADS AMK AMK AMK