Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, denied anticipatory bail to law students involved in the physical alteration that occurred around 11 p.m. in the University area. The court expressed deep disappointment upon witnessing law students engaging in physical altercations, emphasizing the seriousness of such incidents and the need for a thorough investigation, highlighting the importance of upholding legal and ethical standards among future legal professionals.

“This court takes such incidents very seriously and is aghast to note that the law students who will in the coming years be occupying the responsible position of the lawyers or the law officers are indulging in such altercations”, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held. 

One of the students involved in the incident named, Priyam Sharma, filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail. Advocate Suresh Chandra Sati, representing Priyam, contended that the allegations in the FIR showed he, along with other boys, had only beaten the complainant with fists and hand blows.

Advocate Sati argued that the incident was a fight between two groups of students. He further submitted that the FIR also mentioned a prior fight between the same groups earlier that day, for which an FIR had been lodged against the complainant's party. Advocate Sati asserted that the FIR indicated Priyam had only used fists and hand blows, resulting in simple injuries. Advocate Sati claimed it was a false case influenced by a senior judicial officer, the complainant's real uncle.  Advocate Sati also sought bail on the grounds that Priyam was a bright student who needed to take his law exams.

Additional Public Prosecutor Raghvinder Varma, representing the state, highlighted allegations against the District Judge and other judicial officers handling the case. He stated that the investigation was ongoing and noted that the Medical Legal Case (MLC) reported only one injury, but further inquiry revealed two injuries. 

“It is quite unfortunate that the complainant as well as the petitioner party who are law students have indulged in the fight. It is a matter of great concern that the students of law are fighting in such a manner”, the court opined. 

The court noted that both the complainant and Priyam, who were law students, had engaged in a fight. It was concerning that law students fought in such a manner. The FIR indicated the incident occurred around 11 p.m. in the University area, where the aggressive party, allegedly armed with hockey sticks, lathis, and iron rods, assaulted the complainant and others. “Such cases may on the face of it seem to be a fight between two groups, but this court is of the view that they require in depth examination and investigation”, the court remarked. 

The court took such incidents seriously and was aghast that law students, future lawyers or law officers, engaged in such altercations. Although such cases might appear to be mere fights between two groups, the court believed they required in-depth examination and investigation. 

The court was extremely disappointed in “The act of the petitioner in naming a sitting senior judicial officer and levelling allegations against him for influencing the investigation and judicial process”. Such baseless allegations, according to the bench, scandalize the entire criminal justice system.

The court, on the issue of anticipatory bail, reiterated that bail should be granted if there was a reasonable apprehension of being falsely implicated or harassed. Prima facie, the court found no such condition fulfilled. 

Accordingly, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Case Title: Priyam Sharma v State NCT Of Delhi