All Are Equal In Eyes Of Law, None More Equal: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer In Road Rage Case

The Delhi High Court, while denying anticipatory bail to a lawyer in road rage case, observed that all are equal in the eyes of law and none can be treated as more equal.

The Court was considering a Bail Application seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR for offence under Section 110, 127(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The single bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, "....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 Applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Amit Chadha, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha.

Facts of the Case

One day, while going to Deoli Road on his two wheeler, when the victim reached the Shutter Wali Gali, the passage was found blocked by a boy with his white Maruti Ciaz car. By the time the victim on his two wheeler reached behind that white car, a black SUV came behind the victim, leading the victim immobilized from both ends. When the victim blew horn, the driver of the said white car came out and started abusing him but on being called upon not to abuse, the driver of the white car returned to his car. In the meanwhile, the driver of the black SUV came out and disclosing his name as Gajraj, President of Bajrang Wahini Dal challenged the victim that it being his area, the victim needed to be taught lesson. After driving the black SUV inside his house, Gajraj along with the accused/applicant came out and started abusing the victim and also threatened to get the victim arrested in a false case. Thereafter, the accused/applicant and Gajraj started hitting the victim who was sitting on his two wheeler and they threw the victim on ground and started beating him with fists and kicks. They took the victim inside the house and assaulted him with the help of other people and only after the victim apologized, they left the spot.

Senior Counsel for accused/ applicant contended that it is at the most, a case of mere road rage, for which the accused/ applicant not be denied liberty, especially because he is a practicing advocate and is cooperating with the investigating officer. He also submitted that none of the injuries allegedly suffered by the victim is of serious nature and rather, the injury caused on head reflected in the MLC as laceration is not possible on being hit with lath. It was also submitted that earlier the accused/applicant was granted interim bail on three occasions and he cooperated in the investigation.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset rejected the submission that a case of road rage is a mere road rage

"...in the present case, the victim suffered multiple injuries including a head injury which could turn fatal. Quite often, it is seen that road rage leads to much serious offences to the extent of loss of human lives. The other submission related to profession of the accused/applicant, the accused/applicant being an advocate, is all the more a reason for him to ensure upholding of law and order. 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 must have ensured not to take law in their hands...", the Court observed.

It was of the view that the CCTV footage gives a full understanding of the magnitude of the broad daylight violence in the public place, committed by the accused/applicant and his brother, both powerful persons of the society.

The Court stressed that it cannot treat the applicant/ accused differently for being an Advocate, as law applies to all equally.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Raj Kumar Chaudhary vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025: DHC:3807)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Amit Chadha, Advocate Dhan Mohan, Advocate Tanisha Bhatia, Advocate Atin Chadha, Advocate Munisha Chadha

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha

Click here to read/ download Order