Delhi Court Grants Bail In Road Rage Case, Citing Violation Of Law

A Delhi Court granted bail to a man accused in a road rage case, stating that his arrest after complying with a notice to appear before the investigating officer violated the law.

The case, which involves the Wazirabad police station area, centers around a road rage incident in which co-accused individuals allegedly caused serious injury to the victim’s eye. The accused, Tarun, had appeared before the IO in response to a notice and participated in the investigation. However, despite his cooperation, the IO proceeded to arrest him afterward.

Vacation District Judge Neeraj Sharma, who heard the case, emphasized that once an accused person complies with a notice under Section 35(3) BNS (Bhartiya Nagrik Sanhita), there is a presumption that they should not be arrested unless there is a compelling reason. The court noted that the nature of the victim’s injury was already known to the IO before the notice was issued. Therefore, arresting the accused after he cooperated with the investigation was unlawful.

What Court Says?

The judge stated, “Once the accused/applicant stands served with the notice under Section 35(3) BNS, there is a presumption that the accused is not required to be arrested by the IO. In this case, as the opinion regarding the grave nature of the alleged injury was already available to the IO before issuing the notice, this Court holds that once the accused complied with the notice, the grave nature of the injury cannot later justify the arrest.”

The court further concluded that the accused’s arrest was a clear violation of legal principles, and thus granted him bail. The conditions set were a bail bond of Rs. 20,000, along with one surety of the same amount, to be submitted to the satisfaction of the court. This ruling was made on December 27, 2024.

The defense team, led by Advocates Deepak Sharma and Mukesh Sharma, argued that the accused was wrongfully charged under Section 117 of the BNS. They pointed out that the accused had joined the scuffle only after the complainant had already suffered the eye injury from the co-accused. The defense also highlighted that the accused had complied with the notice and joined the investigation, yet the arrest was made without any valid justification.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the bail request, arguing that the offence under Section 117(3) BNS was severe, and the accused posed a risk of influencing witnesses, as the investigation was ongoing.

The court, however, pointed out that the notice under Section 35(2) BNS was served on December 7, 2024, and the accused had cooperated by joining the investigation on the same day. Under Section 35(5) of BNS, the accused could not have been arrested unless the police officer recorded reasons justifying the arrest. When the court inquired about when the IO learned about the seriousness of the injury, the IO confirmed that the opinion regarding the injury was received on November 27, 2024—prior to issuing the notice.

In light of these facts, the court ruled that the arrest was not legally justified, and the accused was granted bail.

Read More: BJP Slams Rahul Gandhi Over Vietnam Trip During National Mourning