Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of causing hurt to an individual (advocate) by hitting his head with an iron rod, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that 'a person’s profession of being an Advocate cannot be held against him'.

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “Merely because a person is a lawyer or a practicing advocate by profession, his complaint upon sustaining an injury by someone cannot be disregarded merely on the ground of his being a practicing advocate and thus he knew how to draft a complaint”.

“The same would imply that an injured person who has his or her complaint prepared by a lawyer will be at better footing, than a lawyer himself who has suffered injuries on the vital part of the body”, Justice Sharma added.

The single-judge bench said, if a person has a position of authority or skill and he is able to help others, then in his own case, his own skill, profession, or position of authority cannot work to his disadvantage.

Court was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by Sawan, owner of a chicken shop after a lawyer had filed a complaint against him and another person over a verbal altercation on the issue of the weight of chicken purchased by the complainant.

The complaint was filed under Sections 323(punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 341(punishment for wrongful restraint), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), and 41 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution’s case was that Sawan had threatened to not return the money of the complainant (lawyer). It was stated that the complainant discussed the incident with his brother Faraz and his friend, and as his friend knew Sawan, he went to pacify the issue. However, when they reached the chicken shop to sort it out, 3-4 people started beating Faraz.

Subsequently, when the complainant rushed to save his brother, Sawan caught hold of him along with co-accused Salman and hit his head with an iron rod. The complainant fainted at the spot due to the injury and was later taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre.

Counsel appearing for Sawan contended that the complainant, being a practicing advocate was well aware of the nuances of writing a complaint, filed the same concocting a story to falsely implicate him.

The court stated that since the MLC and the photographs that had been filed on record showed that the complainant had a laceration to his left frontal region, and this fact that he was injured has weighed more heavily than his profession. “It is to be noted that the injury was inflicted with an iron rod on the left frontal forehead of the complainant and the wound had to be stitched with six stitches above the left eye on his forehead”, the court said.

The court further stated that the fact that the complainant had been hit on the vital part of his body and had received six stitches pointed toward the gravity of the offence.

Noting that the iron rod used for the commission of the offence was yet to be recovered and that the investigation was at an initial stage, the court ordered, “In view thereof, at this stage, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favor of accused/applicant. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed”.

Case Title: Sawan v. State

Statue: The Indian Penal Code