The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a law student from Delhi University involved in a late-night brawl. The court expressed shock and dismay that individuals training to become future lawyers and law officers would engage in such misconduct.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court expressed serious concern over a violent altercation involving law students at Delhi University.
In denying anticipatory bail to one of the students involved, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma remarked,
“It is deeply troubling that law students are engaging in such violent behaviour. The court is appalled that future lawyers and law officers are participating in these kinds of altercations. Although this may appear to be just a fight between two groups, the court believes it warrants thorough examination and investigation.”
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail from the High Court after being charged for involvement in a late-night brawl among Delhi University law students.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was part of a group armed with hockey sticks, lathis, and iron rods, who assaulted the complainant and others.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that his client only used his fists to beat the complainant, and the injuries inflicted were minor.
He further alleged that the case fabricated, claiming that the investigation was being unduly influenced by a senior judicial officer who is the complainant’s uncle.
The Court expressed “extreme disappointment” regarding the petitioner’s allegations against a senior judicial officer.
The Court remarked,
“These unfounded allegations undermine the entire criminal justice system,”
Subsequently, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application, noting that approval would convey the wrong message.
The Court observed,
“This court has consistently condemned such violent altercations between groups. In this instance, around 11 p.m., the assailants, including the petitioner, attacked the complainant’s party with lathis, hockey sticks, and dandas. Granting anticipatory bail in such cases would certainly send a wrong message,”
Representing the petitioner Advocates Suresh Chandra Sati, Satish Chandra, and Naresh Kumar.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Raghvinder Verma appeared on behalf of the State.
The respondent/complainant represented by a team of advocates, including Rakesh Chahar, Shweta Dhingra, Hazel Bhardwaj, Satpal Singh, Harshdeep Kochar, and Vaishali Chaudhary.
Read Also: 2016 Dalit Law Student Rape-Murder Case | Kerala HC Upholds Death Sentence
Despite the defense’s arguments, which may have included the student’s academic background and lack of prior criminal record, the court found the nature of the allegations and the severity of the incident to be compelling reasons to deny the anticipatory bail.
This decision reflects the court’s stance on ensuring justice and deterring public disorder, especially involving individuals in responsible positions, such as future legal professionals.
Read Order: [Priyam Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi]