Being A Practicing Advocate Does Not Make It To Be Exceptional Case: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Advocate Declared Proclaimed Offender
The advocate was accused of brutal assault, molestation, and public disrobing of a complainant and her family members.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused’s status as a practicing advocate does not make a case exceptional when seeking anticipatory bail as a proclaimed offender. It observed that the respect due to advocates as officers of the court cannot extend to one who indulges in brazen lawlessness publicly and with impunity. The advocate was accused of assault and molestation, where the dispute pertained to a basement gymnasium operated by his father in the complainant's property, where some of the attacks and evidence concealment (such as the missing CCTV DVR) allegedly took place.
Dismissing the application, the Court reiterated that there is no absolute bar on anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender. It held, following Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2026) 6 SCC 216, that relief is available only where, on the material, no case is made out prima facie. It found no such case here and held custodial interrogation to be genuinely required.
A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “…the accused/applicant is a Proclaimed Offender and it is not a case where prima facie no offence is made out against him, which is the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Balmukund (supra), and his being a practicing advocate does not make it to be an exceptional case on account of his conduct described above at length. Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would convey wrong signals to the society at large that being a practicing advocate can be a license to indulge in such brazen lawlessness and would erode the public confidence in the rule of law…”.
Senior Advocates Shri Singh and Jatan Singh appeared for the petitioner while Amit Ahlawat, APP appeared for the respondent.
The applicant, Vikas Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 329(4), 333, 74, 351(3), 79 and 3(5) of the BNS. The prosecution alleges that on January 2, 2026, after a dispute over access to a basement gym run by the complainant, the applicant, his father and others assaulted the complainant and her family, including with a gym rod, and forcibly disrobed two male family members, one of them on a public road. It alleges the incident was recorded on CCTV.
The IO conducted raids on multiple dates between January 3 and February 8, 2026, but non-bailable warrants could not be executed. Proceedings under Section 84 BNSS began but were stayed by the magistrate. The applicant was declared a proclaimed offender on October 12, 2026, an order he has not challenged. He argued that the magistrate should not have proceeded while his bail application was pending.
The Court rejected that argument, noting that no order stayed the magistrate’s proceedings and the applicant had sought no such direction. It held the declaration “perfectly lawful”. Applying Balmukund, it found no exceptional circumstances. It noted that one injured person suffered a fractured right mandible from the gym rod. It described the CCTV footage played in Court as “shocking and barbaric” and treated the public disrobing as a graver psychological injury than the physical harm. It accepted the State’s explanation for the discrepancy in the medical record on the side of the face, holding it a matter for trial.
On the applicant’s status, it noted that he recorded his own police interrogation on video while non-bailable warrants were pending, and that the IO who then let him go has been suspended. It also held custodial interrogation genuine, since the gym’s CCTV DVR has been removed.
The Court held that granting bail would signal that advocacy can be a licence for lawlessness and would erode public confidence in the rule of law. It dismissed the application and the accompanying applications.
Cause Title: Vikas Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9520)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Shri Singh and Jatan Singh, Senior Advocates, Surabhi Vaya, Gursimran Narula, Nitin Kumar Sharma and Lakshay Chauhan, Advocates.
Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP, SI Kevendra Singh, PS Laxmi Nagar, Abhay Kumar, Pankaj Jaiswal, Shagun Ruhil, Karan Chopra and Rahul Kanojia, Advocates.