In an application filed before the Delhi High Court, an advocate being a proclaimed offender sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for commission of offences under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/329(4)/333/74/351(3)/79/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia refused to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The applicant’s father was a caretaker of a gymnasium run by the complainant in the basement of her house. On 02-01-2026, the complainant, her husband, and their son made six PCR calls regarding a quarrel at their premises. The IO reached the spot and found the son lying naked on the road, who was so traumatized and shaken that he could not speak, but only asked for his father to be saved. The complainant’s husband was brought out of the gym and it was found that he was also injured.
An FIR was registered upon the complainant’s statement against the accused persons including the present applicant on the allegation that all of them had brutally assaulted and molested the complainant and her family members. During investigation, it came out that the applicant’s father refused to vacate the basement gym, had even occupied the parking space outside, and was demanding money to vacate the same.
On 02-01-2026, when the complainant asked for the basement to be opened to repair a blocked pipeline, the accused persons refused, and the co-accused assaulted the complainant’s husband. It was alleged that the applicant and co-accused then arrived, tried to hit the husband with their car, and beat him with kicks, fists and a gym rod, after which they dragged the complainant onto the road, where she was assaulted and molested. The applicant and his father were also alleged to have forcibly disrobed the complainant’s husband inside the gym and his son on the public road.
Four of the six assailants had been arrested, while the applicant and another co-accused remained at large. The applicant contended that it was improper to declare him a proclaimed offender while his bail application was pending, that he had no concern with the gym, that he had joined the investigation during the Section 84 BNSS proceedings, that no CCTV footage showed him disrobing the complainant’s son, that the allegation regarding missing CCTV DVR surfaced later as a pretext for custodial interrogation, and that the MLC’s record of the injury on the left side of the husband’s face, as against the right side in the private doctor’s record, showed fabrication.
The Court stated that even though there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender, it is to be seen that the proclaimed offender has been able to set up exceptional circumstances for such relief. The Court treated the assault as more than hitting with a gym rod, noting that the husband suffered a fracture of the right mandible and that the psychological trauma of being disrobed on a public road would take years to heal. It was also noted that the incident where the son was lying completely naked on the road was captured in CCTV, and it was stated that the manner of assault was shocking as well as barbaric.
The Court accepted the State’s explanation that the MLC’s recording of the injury on the left side arose from miscommunication, and stated that this could be examined at trial and was no ground for bail. Further, the Court said that even though all advocates, being officers of the court, deserve respect, such tenet could not be extended to an advocate, who indulges in brazen lawlessness, that too publicly and with such impunity. The Court stated that the applicant also had the audacity to tape record his own interrogation, that too when he was already under non-bailable warrants, which established his mindset of exhibiting the might of being an advocate. Considering the circumstances, the Court also said that the applicant’s mindset showed scant regard for law under the mistaken impression that being an advocate, he could not be arrested.
It was also held that the order dated 12-10-2026 declaring the applicant a proclaimed offender was lawful because no stay had been granted on the magistrate’s proceedings. The Court noted that custodial interrogation was required to recover the DVR of the CCTV, and stated that the applicant being a practising advocate did not make it an exceptional case. It was said that granting anticipatory bail would convey wrong signals to society that being a practicing advocate can be a license for such lawlessness and would erode public confidence in the rule of law. Thus, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
