Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of attacking, injuring lawyer

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of attacking and injuring a lawyer [Sawan vs State]..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the applicant's argument that the complainant, being a lawyer who was familiar with the nuances of writing a complaint, had twisted the facts 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 Court explained..The First Information Report (FIR) against the accused was registered under sections 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (Wrongful restraint) and 34 (Acts done in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..As per the FIR, a verbal altercation took place between the complainant and his cousin, and the accused and the co-accused, over an issue of weight of chicken purchased by the complainant from the accused..The prosecution claimed that post the altercation, the complainant went home and returned with his brother and friend, to sort out the issue. However, a physical tussle ensued during which the complainant was hit on the head with an iron rod by the accused persons. He fell unconscious and was treated at AIIMS trauma centre. 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 familiar with the nuances of writing a complaint, had twisted the facts to compel the police to register a complaint.They claimed that the complainant pressurized him to sell chicken to him at a lower price than the market price, which the applicant did to avoid an altercation. However, the complainant allegedly returned with 20-25 people, who slapped the applicant and pulled his hair, after which the applicant, in self defence, pushed the complainant who got injured after his head hit a marble slab..They further claimed that the complainant took ₹15,000 from the accused's shop, for which a complaint was lodged on which no action was taken. They also stated that section 308 was added to the FIR only nine days after it was registered..On the other hand, Assistant Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant argued that the allegations were serious in nature and custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary to apprehend other accused persons and for recovery of the weapon of offence..The counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant was hit on the head with an iron rod and gave his statement only when he was declared fit, subsequent to which section 308 was added to the FIR. .The Court 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..Further, 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..The applicant was represented by advocate Pawan Kumar.The complainant was represented by Senior Advocates KK Manan and Mohit Mathur, and advocates Uditi Bali and Anil Basoya..[Read Order]