New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of attacking and injuring a lawyer.
Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the applicant’s claim that the complainant had fabricated facts to force the police to file a report because the complainant was a lawyer who was knowledgeable about how to do so.
“Merely because a person is a lawyer or a practising advocate by profession, his complaint upon sustaining an injury by someone cannot be disregarded merely on the ground of his being a practising advocate and thus he knew how to draft a complaint. The same would imply that an injured person who has his or her complaint prepared by a lawyer will be at better footing, than a lawyer himself who has suffered injuries on the vital part of the body,” the court said.
The FIR against the accused was registered under different sections of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and acts done in furtherance of common intention.
There was a verbal argument between the complainant and his cousin, the accused and the co-accused, regarding the weight of chicken the complainant had purchased from the accused, according to the FIR.
After the argument, according to the prosecution, the complainant went home and later returned with his brother and a friend to resolve the conflict, but after a physical tussle, the accused individuals struck the complainant in the head with an iron rod.
He lost consciousness and received care at the trauma centre of AIIMS.
During the course of investigation, discharge summary, X-rays and MLCs were obtained, pursuant to which Section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the IPC was added to the FIR.
According to the applicant’s lawyer, the complainant put pressure on him to sell chicken to him for less than market value, which he did to avoid a confrontation. However, the applicant claims that the complainant came back with 20-25 individuals, who slapped and pulled his hair before the applicant, acting in self-defense, he pushed the complainant, who sustained injuries after his head struck a marble slab.
The applicant’s lawyer further asserted that the complainant took Rs 15,000 from the accused’s shop and that despite a complaint being filed, nothing was done about it. It was also claimed that only after nine days from the date of FIR registered, section 308 was added to it.
But, Assistant Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant stated that because the charges were severe, the custodial interrogation of the suspect was necessary in order to identify more suspects and find the crime’s weapon.
According to the complainant’s attorney, as the complainant was struck in the head with an iron rod, he could provide his statement after being deemed fit, which led to the addition of section 308 to the FIR.
The judge accepted the submission and also recorded that the trial court had already sought an explanation from the SHO concerned on the issue.
After rejecting the argument that the lawyer got the complaint registered owing to his knowledge of the law and by twisting facts, the court observed that if a person with a skill is able to help others, the skill cannot work to his disadvantage.
“If a person has a position of authority or skill and he is able to help others, then in his own case, his own skill, profession or position of authority cannot work to his disadvantage,” the court said.
Moreover, it said that it was not the complainant’s profession, but the fact that he was injured, which helped the court in deciding the application as the evidence revealed that the complainant had suffered a serious injury in form of a laceration on the forehead. It also noted that the iron rod allegedly used was yet to be recovered.
Accordingly, the court held that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail was made out and hence dismissed the application.
(IANS)
