Law Students Engaging In Violent Clash Concerning: Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail

The case saw the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail after being implicated in a late-night brawl where students allegedly used hockey sticks, lathis, and iron rods to assault others.

A Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said, “This court takes such incidents very seriously and is aghast to note that the law students who will in the coming years be occupying the responsible position of the lawyers or the law officers are indulging in such altercations. Such cases may on the face of it seem to be a fight between two groups, but this court is of the view that they require in depth examination and investigation.”

The Court remarked that it was alarming to witness law students, who are future lawyers and law officers, engaging in such violent altercations. The Court added, “It is quite unfortunate that the complainant as well as the petitioner party who are law students have indulged in the fight. It is a matter of great concern that the students of law are fighting in such a manner.”

Advocate Suresh Chandra Sati appeared for the Petitioner and Assistant Public Prosecutor Raghvinder Verma appeared for the Respondent.

The petitioner's defense argued that their client had only used fists and caused minor injuries, disputing the severity of the charges. They further claimed the case was influenced by a senior judicial officer related to the complainant, a claim the court dismissed as baseless and damaging to the judicial process.

Expressing disappointment at such unfounded allegations against a senior judicial officer, the court underscored that such claims undermine the criminal justice system. Justice Sharma highlighted that granting anticipatory bail in cases of group violence would send a wrong message and reiterated the court's stance against such incidents. The Court said, “This court has time and again condemned the act of such free fights between the group of people. Here again, in the night around 11 p.m., the assaulters including the petitioner assaulted the complainant party with lathi, hockey and danda, I consider that granting anticipatory bail in such cases would certainly give a wrong message.”

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail plea, citing the seriousness of the charges and the need to discourage such behavior among students aspiring to become legal professionals.

Cause Title: Priyam Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Suresh Chandra Sati, Satish Chandra, and Naresh Kumar

Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor Raghvinder Verma, Advocates Rakesh Chahar, Shweta Dhingra, Hazel Bhardwaj, Satpal Singh, Harshdeep Kocchar, and Vaishali Chaudhary