Today, On 16th May, Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused in a road rage case, observing that granting relief for such broad daylight violence in a public area would send the wrong message to society.
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a lawyer involved in a road rage incident, stating that “granting such relief for broad daylight violence in a public area would convey wrong signals to society”, suggesting that the aggressor could evade consequences due to his profession.
Justice Girish Kathpalia emphasized that all individuals are equal under the law, and granting pre-arrest bail would “malign the noble profession of advocacy.”
Also Read: Fake Road Rage Video| Raveena Tandon Takes Legal Action, Defamation Notice Served
He remarked,
“Granting anticipatory bail in the broad daylight violence of the present nature at a public place would send wrong signals across the society that the aggressor took law in hands and walked free just because he happens to be an advocate. All are equal in the eyes of 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, along with his brother who has political connections, reportedly attacked a software engineer in February while he was riding his two-wheeler on Deoli Road. The victim sustained injuries, which the accused described as “mere road rage.”
However, the court disagreed, referencing CCTV footage to highlight the severity of the incident. The judge noted that the victim suffered a head injury that could have been fatal.
The court pointed out that “road rage is not mere road rage,” as it has extensive repercussions, including physical harm and psychological trauma, often leading to loss of life.
In this case, the violence was exacerbated by the fact that the assailants were an advocate and the head of a political organization, both of whom should have acted responsibly.
The court observed that the investigating officer had indicated the necessity for custodial interrogation to recover the weapon used in the assault and to conduct further investigations.
Therefore, it concluded that this was not an appropriate case for granting anticipatory bail.
Road rage, though not specifically defined under Indian law, is typically dealt with under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
Depending on the nature and severity of the incident, the following provisions may apply:
- Section 279 IPC – Rash Driving or Riding on a Public Way
- Punishment: Up to 6 months imprisonment or Rs.1,000 fine or both.
- Section 336 IPC – Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety of Others
- Punishment: Up to 3 months imprisonment or Rs.250 fine or both.
- Section 337 IPC – Causing Hurt by Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety of Others
- Punishment: Up to 6 months imprisonment or Rs.500 fine or both.
- Section 338 IPC – Causing Grievous Hurt by Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety
- Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment or fine up to Rs.1,000 or both.
- Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt
- Punishment: Up to 1 year imprisonment or Rs.1,000 fine or both.
- Section 324 IPC – Causing Hurt with Dangerous Weapons
- Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment or fine or both.
- Section 304A IPC – Causing Death by Negligence (in case of fatal road rage)
- Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment or fine or both.
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –
- Section 184: Driving dangerously
- Section 185: Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
- Penalties include fines, imprisonment, and suspension of driving licence.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Chaudhry v. State