Click the Play button to listen to article

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of molesting a woman and forcibly disrobing her husband and son during an alleged assault on the family, observing that being an advocate is no licence for lawlessness.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that granting anticipatory bail in the circumstances would send a wrong signal to society and erode public confidence in the rule of law.

The advocate is accused of offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on January 02, following a dispute over a gymnasium operating in the basement of the complainant's house. The advocate's father was allegedly looking after the gym and had refused to vacate the basement and the parking space outside the house.

When the complainant and her family members attempted to enter the basement to get a blocked kitchen pipeline repaired, a confrontation allegedly ensued. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons assaulted the family members, with the advocate and other accused allegedly dragging and beating the complainant's husband. The complainant was allegedly assaulted and molested, while her husband and son were forcibly disrobed.

The Court noted that the prosecution relied on the injured persons' statements, medical records and CCTV footage of the incident. It observed that the complainant's husband had suffered a fracture of the right mandible, allegedly caused by an assault with a gym rod.

Highlighting the psychological trauma caused by the alleged public disrobing of the complainant's son, the Court observed that the CCTV footage depicting the assault was “shocking and barbaric, to say the least.”

It noted that the advocate had been declared a proclaimed offender on October 12, 2026, after repeated efforts to trace him and the failure to execute non-bailable warrants. Rejecting his contention that the pendency of his anticipatory bail application prevented the Magistrate from declaring him a proclaimed offender, the Court observed that no order had stayed those proceedings.

The Court clarified that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender. However, such relief may be granted only in exceptional circumstances, including where the Court forms a prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the accused.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that the present case did not satisfy this test.

The Court also rejected the argument that the applicant's status as a practising advocate weighed in favour of granting him relief.

“Of course, all advocates, being officers of the court, deserve respect. But that tenet cannot be extended to an advocate, who indulges in such brazen lawlessness, that too publicly and with such impunity,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted the prosecution's submission that the DVR containing CCTV footage from inside the gym had been removed. It held that custodial interrogation was genuinely required to recover the DVR, which was another factor weighing against the grant of anticipatory bail.

Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting relief, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

For Petitioner: Mr. Shri Singh and Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Advocates with Ms. Surabhi Vaya, Mr. Gursimran Narula, Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma and Mr. Lakshay Chauhan, Advocates

For Respondents: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Kevendra Singh, PS Laxmi Nagar. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Jaiswal, Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Mr. Karan Chopra and Mr. Rahul Kanojia, Advocates for R-2.

Tags: