The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed an anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of attacking and injuring a lawyer.
A single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the applicant’s argument that the complainant, who was a lawyer familiar with the nuances of writing a complaint, had twisted the facts in order to compel the police to register a complaint.
“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 bench stated.
The accused was charged under sections 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (Wrongful restraint), and 34 (Acts done in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the FIR, a verbal altercation occurred between the complainant and his cousin, as well as the accused and the co-accused, over the weight of chicken purchased by the complainant from the accused.
The prosecution claimed that following the altercation, the complainant went home and returned with his brother and a friend to resolve the matter. However, a physical altercation ensued, during which the accused persons struck the complainant on the head with an iron rod. He became unconscious and was taken to the AIIMS trauma center for treatment.
During the course of investigation, discharge summary, X-rays and MLCs were obtained, pursuant to which Section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) IPC was added to the FIR.
The counsel for the applicant contented that the complainant, being a lawyer who was knowledgeable about the nuances of writing a complaint, had fabricated facts to force the police to file a report.
They asserted that in order to prevent a fight, the applicant sold the complainant chicken for less than market value under pressure from the complainant. However, the applicant claims that the complainant came back with 20–25 people, who slapped and pulled his hair before the applicant, acting in self-defense, pushed the complainant, who sustained injuries after his head struck a marble slab.
In addition, they asserted that the complainant stole Rs 15,000 from the accused’s shop and that despite a complaint being filed, no action was taken. Additionally, they claimed that only nine days after the FIR was registered, section 308 was added to it.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant, on the other hand, argued that the allegations were serious and that interrogation of the accused in custody was necessary to apprehend other accused persons and recover the weapon of offense.
The complainant’s counsel stated that the complainant was hit on the head with an iron rod and gave his statement only after he was declared fit, after which section 308 was added to the FIR.
The bench accepted the submission and noted that the trial court had already requested an explanation from the SHO involved on the issue.
After rejecting the lawyer’s argument that the complaint was registered due 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 against him.
“If a person has a position of authority or skill and is able to help others, then his own skill, profession, or position of authority cannot work against him,” the bench stated.
Furthermore, it stated that the fact that the complainant was injured, rather than his profession, aided the Court in deciding the application, as evidence revealed that the complainant had suffered a serious injury in the form of a laceration on the forehead. It was also stated that the allegedly used iron rod had yet to be recovered.
As a result, the bench determined that no ground for anticipatory bail was established and dismissed the application.
