'Will send wrong signal to society': Delhi HC denies bail to lawyer in road rage

NEW DELHI: Refusing to grant bail to a lawyer in a case of road rage, Delhi High Court has said that granting relief for "broad daylight violence" in a public place would send "wrong signals" to society, suggesting that the aggressor walked free because of his profession.Justice Girish Kathpalia, in the order issued on Thursday, remarked that all individuals are equal before the law, and making an exception would "malign the noble profession of advocacy."HC said that granting anticipatory bail "in the broad daylight violence of the present nature at a public place would send wrong signals across society that the aggressor took the law into his hands and walked free just because he happens to be an advocate. All are equal in the eyes of the law, and none can be treated as more equal. Such relief, if granted to the accused/applicant, would also malign the noble profession of advocacy."The accused and his brother allegedly assaulted a software engineer in Feb, who was on his way to Deoli Road on a two-wheeler. The victim sustained injuries in what the accused termed 'mere road rage'.However, the court strongly disagreed. Citing CCTV footage, Justice Kathpalia said the visuals helped "fully understand the magnitude" of the violence by two "powerful persons of society" - one an advocate, the other the president of a political organisation-both responsible members of society who should have ensured not to take the law into their hands.The judge noted that the victim also suffered a head injury, which could have been fatal. It added that "road rage is not mere road rage" as it has wide-ranging ramifications in the form of physical injury and psychological damage to the victim and quite often results in loss of lives.The court also took note of the investigating officer's request for custodial interrogation to recover the assault weapon and further probe the case. Given the severity of the offence and the role of the accused, it concluded that this was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.