On May 16, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Chaudhary v. State, denying anticipatory bail to a practicing lawyer accused of assaulting a software engineer in a road rage incident. Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the case, emphasized the principle that all individuals are equal before the law, regardless of their professional status, and that granting bail in such circumstances could send a detrimental message to society.
The incident in question involved the accused lawyer and his brother, identified as the President of the Bajrang Wahini Dal. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the two were traveling in a black SUV when they allegedly confronted the victim, who was on a two-wheeler. The confrontation escalated as the accused reportedly abused the victim, forcibly threw him to the ground, and physically assaulted him with fists and kicks. Another individual, the driver of a separate vehicle, also allegedly joined in the assault. The situation further deteriorated when the victim was allegedly taken into the accused's residence, where he was subjected to additional beatings, resulting in multiple injuries, including a bleeding head wound.
In his defense, the lawyer contended that the incident was a minor altercation typical of road rage scenarios and argued that his status as a practicing advocate, coupled with his cooperation with the investigation, warranted the granting of anticipatory bail. However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive. Justice Kathpalia highlighted that the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim, particularly the head injury, could have had fatal consequences. He stressed that road rage incidents often escalate into serious offenses, sometimes leading to loss of life, and therefore cannot be dismissed as trivial.
The court further underscored the responsibility that comes with professional stature. It noted that both the accused lawyer and his brother held positions of influence and were expected to uphold the law rather than take it into their own hands. Granting anticipatory bail in such a case, the court reasoned, would not only undermine the rule of law but also tarnish the reputation of the legal profession. It would convey a message that individuals with professional or political clout could evade accountability, thereby eroding public trust in the justice system.
Justice Kathpalia's judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the judiciary's commitment to impartiality and the principle that no one is above the law. By denying anticipatory bail, the court sent a clear message that professional status does not confer immunity from legal consequences, especially in cases involving violence and public disorder. This decision is poised to set a precedent in similar cases, reinforcing the notion that the legal system must be applied uniformly, without favoritism or bias.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's ruling in this case highlights the judiciary's role in maintaining the sanctity of the legal profession and ensuring that justice is administered equitably. It serves as a reminder that the law applies equally to all, and that positions of authority come with an inherent responsibility to uphold, not undermine, the legal and moral fabric of society.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.