The High Court of Delhi has formally rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a practicing advocate, Vikas Yadav, who was declared a proclaimed offender in connection with a violent dispute in the Laxmi Nagar area. In an order delivered on October 28, 2026, Justice Girish Kathpalia underscored that the accused’s status as a legal professional did not exempt him from the consequences of alleged brazen lawlessness. The court held that granting relief to an individual who has evaded the legal process would undermine the public’s confidence in the justice system.

The case, registered under FIR No. 04/2026 at Police Station Laxmi Nagar, involves multiple charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including those related to assault, molestation, and public humiliation. The allegations stem from a January 2, 2026, altercation between the family of the complainant, Smt. Rita Garg, and a group of individuals, including the accused, regarding a gymnasium operated in the basement of the complainant’s property. The prosecution alleges that the dispute reached a violent crescendo when the accused and his associates obstructed access to repair a blocked kitchen pipeline.

According to the case records, the confrontation escalated when the accused, alongside his father and other co-accused, reportedly assaulted the complainant’s husband, Shri Rajesh Garg, and their son, Vasu Garg. The investigation revealed that the victims were beaten with a gym rod, resulting in severe physical injuries, including a fractured mandible for Shri Rajesh Garg. The court was presented with graphic details regarding the humiliation of the family members, specifically that the victims were forcibly disrobed in the basement and on a public road. Justice Kathpalia noted that the psychological trauma inflicted by these acts was significant, labeling the conduct of the accused as "shocking and barbaric."

The procedural history of the case indicates a pattern of non-compliance by the accused. Despite multiple notices and the subsequent issuance of non-bailable warrants, Vikas Yadav failed to surrender or comply with the investigation, leading the concerned magistrate to formally declare him a proclaimed offender on October 12, 2026. During the High Court proceedings, the defense argued that there was no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender and that the accused had, at one point, engaged in the investigation. However, the state’s counsel emphasized that the accused had consistently evaded the law, and that his actions included an unauthorized audio-visual recording of his own interrogation inside a police station—a move that eventually led to the suspension of the investigating officer.

In its judgment, the High Court addressed the legal threshold for granting relief to absconding suspects. Justice Kathpalia relied on the Supreme Court’s established position that while the power to grant anticipatory bail exists, it is reserved for exceptional circumstances where no prima facie case is made out. The court found that such circumstances were absent here. Emphasizing the necessity of upholding judicial integrity, the judgment stated: “It is apposite to mention that granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law abiding co-accused persons who stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity.”

The court further dismissed the defense’s contention that the accused’s status as an advocate warranted a more lenient approach. While acknowledging that legal practitioners are officers of the court, the bench held that this profession cannot serve as a shield for criminal activity. The court observed that the accused’s conduct, marked by his disregard for judicial warrants and his attempts to intimidate the investigative process, clearly necessitated custodial interrogation.

A critical factor in the court’s decision was the state’s requirement to recover the digital video recorder (DVR) of the CCTV cameras installed in the basement gym. The prosecution argued that the footage, which purportedly captured the entire incident of assault and the disrobing of the victims, was deliberately removed by the accused to destroy evidence. The court concluded that the recovery of this evidence was essential, and therefore, the request for custodial interrogation was genuine and required for a thorough investigation.

Regarding the allegations of discrepancies in the medical records—specifically the site of the injuries found on the face of Shri Rajesh Garg—the court observed that these were minor points of contention that would be addressed during the trial. The court verified that medical opinions from government doctors shortly after the incident consistently indicated the injuries, and noted that such forensic nuances could not be used to justify an anticipatory bail order for a proclaimed offender.

The court reiterated that the legal order declaring the accused a proclaimed offender remained valid and enforceable, noting that the defense had failed to provide any stay or challenge that would undermine the magistrate's decision. By denying the bail application, the court has paved the way for law enforcement agencies to proceed with the execution of the non-bailable warrants. The case now moves toward potential custodial proceedings, as the police continue to hunt for the remaining accused, including those who have yet to seek any legal protection. The decision serves as a stern reminder of the court's commitment to ensuring that the legal process remains accessible and binding, regardless of the professional background of the accused. Justice Kathpalia’s concluding observation highlighted the core of the ruling: “Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would convey wrong signals to the society at large that being a practicing advocate can be a license to indulge in such brazen lawlessness and would erode the public confidence in the rule of law.”