Delhi HC Denies Bail to Lawyer, Flags Road Rage Ramifications

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, denied anticipatory bail to a practicing advocate accused of violently assaulting a software engineer in broad daylight. The court, while denying bail, highlighted that road rage is not merely road rage but leads to wider ramifications, ranging from physical injury to psychological damage. 

The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held, "Road rage is not mere road rage. It has wide ranging ramifications in the form of not just physical injury but the psychological dent caused on the victim. Quite often, it is seen that road rage leads to loss of human  lives as well". 

The bench further commented, "The damage caused gets aggrandized when one of the aggressors is a lawyer while the other is a President of a political organization". 

The case stemmed from an incident that occurred on February 19, 2025, around 3:30 p.m. on Deoli Road. The victim, while riding his two-wheeler, found the path blocked by a white Maruti Ciaz. As the victim waited, a black SUV pulled up behind him, leaving him trapped. When the victim honked, the driver of the white car initially responded with verbal abuse but retreated after being confronted.

Moments later, the driver of the SUV, who identified himself as Gajraj, President of the Bajrang Wahini Dal, intervened. He allegedly warned the victim that he needed to be taught a lesson for being in his area. Gajraj then drove the SUV into his house and returned with the applicant, an advocate, both of whom began verbally abusing and threatening the victim. The applicant reportedly warned the victim that he would be falsely implicated in a criminal case.

According to the complaint, the situation quickly escalated when the two dragged the victim off his scooter and beat him with fists and kicks. The driver of the white car also joined in. The victim was then forcibly taken inside Gajraj’s residence, where he was further assaulted with bamboo sticks (lathis), resulting in multiple injuries, including a bleeding head wound. As more individuals gathered, the assault continued until the victim, in a desperate state, apologized. The attackers allegedly left after issuing threats of false arrest. The police later arrived and took the injured victim to the AIIMS Trauma Centre.

The accused advocate, represented by Senior Advocate Amit Chadha, argued that this was a mere case of road rage. Senior Advocate Chadha further alleged that the brother of the accused advocate was also assaulted by the victim using a blade. It was argued that this complaint was not addressed by the police. 

The court, however, rejected the argument of the accused's advocate. The court outlined that "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 reviewed the CCTV footage of the incident and noted that the injuries sustained by the victim, including the laceration on the scalp, were grievous. The court also noted that the accused’s custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the weapon and footage from his residence and to identify other assailants.

The court stated that granting anticipatory bail in such a case would send a wrong message to society and undermine the integrity of the legal profession. It further clarified that while it was within the police's discretion to arrest the accused or not, the present application did not merit relief under anticipatory bail.

The court added, "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 noted that the co-accused, Bhanu Chaudhary, also approached the court for anticipatory bail but withdrew his application after being confronted with the medical report and video evidence.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the social standing of the accused, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, reinforcing that all citizens, regardless of profession or status, must be treated equally before the law.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Chadha with Advocates Dhan Mohan, Tanisha Bhatia, Atin Chadha and Munisha Chadha

For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha

Case Title: Raj Kumar Chaudhary v State (2025:DHC:3807)