The Supreme Court has ordered the transfer of a case in the matter of assault of an advocate by a toll plaza staff, and the further acts of violence and lawlessness which ensued when another lawyer came forward to defend the accused. Granting bail to the accused staff, the Apex Court condemned the role of the members of the bar at Barabanki, who indulged in hooliganism.

The Apex Court highlighted how the writ petition presented a sorry state of affairs with respect to the conduct of law professionals, particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “Before parting, we condemn the role of the members of the bar at Barabanki, who indulged into hooliganism by damaging the furniture etc. of the advocate, who had filed the bail application on behalf of the petitioners.”

Advocate Md. Asif Iqbal represented the Petitioner, while AOR Rohit K. Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners are contractual employees of a company and are permanent residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh. They were posted for toll collection duty at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza. On January 14, 2026, an advocate allegedly refused to pay the requisite toll charges while passing through the said toll plaza. Consequently, a verbal spat ensued between the complainant and the staff posted at the toll plaza, which subsequently escalated into a scuffle. It was alleged that the petitioners, being the employees of the operating company and posted at the toll plaza, assaulted the complainant.

An FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was the case of the petitioners that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them at the time of their arrest. The petitioners were thereafter produced before the A.C.J.M. and were remanded to judicial custody. Immediately after the registration of the F.I.R., members of the Bar Association started violent protests. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh joined the fray and addressed a letter to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh requesting the invocation of the provisions of the National Security Act against the petitioners, even though the incident pertained to a trivial scuffle.

One advocate, Manoj Shukla, filed a bail application on behalf of the petitioners against a resolution to the effect that no advocate would represent the accused persons in connection with the FIR. The members of the Bar resorted to unruly behaviour. The office furniture of the said advocate was set on fire, and his effigy was also burnt. The petitioners submitted that such acts of rampant violence by the members of the bar created an atmosphere of fear and thereby dissuaded any further attempts to represent the petitioners. The petitioners, having been deprived of access to legal remedies in the State of Uttar Pradesh, approached the Court seeking a direction to be released on bail and for the transfer of the proceedings of the criminal case to a competent Court in Delhi.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the legal profession, which was once regarded as a noble profession, was tainted and tarnished by the acts of hooliganism perpetrated pursuant to the fracas which took place at the toll plaza. “We can understand the sentiment of fraternity amongst the lawyers but that, by no means, can justify the acts of violence and lawlessness which ensued when a brave lawyer came forward to defend the accused. These deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be deprecated. The disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps in this regard”, it added.

As per the Bench, it was not a case wherein the accused petitioners could have been denied bail. It was further noticed that the petitioners were performing their duties at the toll plaza where the incident happened. “Possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant may have resisted the attempt of the petitioners in demanding toll (rightly so) resulting into a spat between the complainant and the employees of the toll plaza i.e., the petitioners herein”, it added.

The Bench thus ordered, “In these circumstances, denial of bail to the petitioners and the curtailment of their liberty for a period exceeding two months is absolutely unjustified and violative of the Fundamental Right of Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench directed that the petitioners would be released on bail, upon furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate.“In order to ensure that the accused get proper legal representation and a fair trial, we direct that the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.15/2026 shall stand transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, i.e., remand, filing of result of investigation, and trial”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 254)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Md. Asif Iqbal, Iqbal Ahmad, Sangeeta, Atul Kumar Srivastav, Anu Priya Nisha Minz, AOR Siddhartha Sinha

Respondent: AOR Rohit K. Singh, Advocates Pritam Bishwas, Kartikey Bansal

Click here to read/download Order




Justice Vikram NathJustice Sandeep Mehta

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.