Delhi court grants bail to road rage accused, flags illegal arrest | Latest News Delhi

A Delhi court on Tuesday granted bail to a man accused in a road rage case, observing that his arrest despite compliance with a notice to cooperate in the investigation was a “clear violation of law.” Vacation judge Neeraj Sharma passed the order while hearing the bail plea of Tarun(goes by single name), accused of assaulting a man in a road rage incident in Wazirabad. 

The incident, which occurred in November, involved Imran (goes by single name), a resident of Ghaziabad, who alleged that Tarun, a resident of Jagatpur, and three associates blocked his way and assaulted him. Imran claimed one of the attackers struck him in the right eye with a bracelet. 

The court was informed that the investigating officer (IO) was informed about the grave nature of the injury allegedly inflicted by the accused persons, following which the IO issued a notice under section 35(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requiring the accused to appear before the police. 

The order was passed on Tuesday by vacation judge Neeraj Sharma in a bail application moved by Tarun, an accused in a road rage case in north Delhi’s Wazirabad. 

The incident occurred in November, where Imran, a resident of Ghaziabad, alleged that accused Tarun, a resident of Jagatpur, along with his three associates, blocked his way and beat him up with kicks and punches in a case of road rage. Imran further alleged that one of the three boys hit him in the right eye with a bracelet he was wearing on his hand. The police filed charges under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) related to voluntarily causing hurt (BNS 115[2]), wrongful restraint (BNS 126[2]), and criminal intimidation (BNS 351[3]). 

The investigating officer (IO) issued a notice under Section 35(2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on December 7, requiring Tarun to join the investigation, which he did the same day. Judge Sharma noted, “As the accused has joined the investigation in compliance with the said notice, as per the mandate of Section 35(3) BNSS, the accused could not have been arrested unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the accused is required to be arrested.” 

The court enquired about the grounds for Tarun’s arrest despite his compliance. The IO produced the police file, revealing that the arrest memo contained mechanically ticked, pre-typed reasons without proper justification. 

Citing the BNSS, the court observed, “Once the accused/applicant stands served with the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, there is a presumption that the accused is not required to be arrested by the IO.” It further ruled that the IO already knew about the grave nature of the alleged injury before issuing the notice and could not use it as a subsequent justification for arresting Tarun without recording cogent reasons. 

Deeming the custody of the accused a “clear violation of the mandate of law,” the court granted bail, directing Tarun to furnish a personal bond of ₹20,000.