Person exercising legal right in court has obligation & duty to refrain from acts that violate others rights: Delhi High Court

Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Court was hearing a bail plea of a man accused of causing damage inside Court Room No. 66 of Karkardooma Court, Shahdara, Delhi when he was informed that hearing in his case had been rescheduled.

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a person exercising his legal rights in a court of law has a corresponding obligation and duty to refrain from acts that may violate the rights of other individuals.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed that vindicating any personal grievance through violent means must be rejected at the outset.

The court was hearing a bail application of a man in a case registered under Sections 186, 353, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The prosecution’s case was that on July 17, 2021, a PCR call was received at Police Station Farsh Bazar regarding damage inside Court Room No. 66 of Karkardooma Court, Shahdara, Delhi. According to the complainant, Girish Vaidya, Reader of the presiding officer, at around 10:00 am the petitioner inquired about the status of his case which was pending in Court.

It was alleged that when the complainant informed the petitioner that his case had been scheduled for July 19, 2021, the petitioner became enraged and began vandalizing the courtroom furniture and also pursued the Reader with the intent of assaulting him.

Pressing the bail plea, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been in custody since July 17, 2021, and has no prior criminal history and the chargesheet had been filed on September 13, 2021.

On the contrary, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) for State opposed the application, claiming that CCTV footage of the incident had been obtained and photographs of the incident were annexed.

APP also claimed that the fingerprints found on the glass shield and other articles were obtained, but according to the Finger Print Bureau report, the petitioner's fingerprints could not be identified.

Court while granting bail to the petitioner noted that the applicant comes from a low-income family and lives a juggi in Shashtri Park, Delhi, and it appeared that he had taken the law into his own hands by damaging public property to vent his frustration in court.

Court further held, "In the present case, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner is a first-time offender with no prior convictions and belongs to a socially marginalized group and the appears to have occurred for no apparent reason other than the petitioner's difficulty in carrying out the legal proceedings he initiated".

Court noted that the petitioner was in custody for over a year and the trial is expected to take a long time to complete because 19 witnesses have been cited and only one has been examined to date.

Conclusively, Court granted the petitioner bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount.

Case Title: Rakesh v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)