Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Md. Asif Iqbal, Adv. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Sangeeta, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bansal, ADv.

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points with corresponding references:

• Case Details: The Supreme Court of India, in a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 109 of 2026 decided on 17-03-2026 by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, affirmed the fundamental right to liberty and criticized unlawful bail denial and violence by Bar members. [judgement_subject]
• Legal Framework: The judgment refers to the Constitution of India (Articles 21 and 32) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. [judgement_act_referred]
• Facts of the Case: Petitioners, employed at a toll plaza by M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., were arrested following an altercation with an advocate, Mr. Ratnesh Shukla, who allegedly refused to pay toll charges. (!) (!)
• Arrest and FIR: An FIR (No. 15/2026) was registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District Barabanki, on 14-01-2026 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioners alleged that grounds of arrest were not communicated to them at the time of arrest. (!) (!)
• Violence by Bar Members: Following the FIR, members of the Bar Association engaged in violent protests. A resolution was passed that no advocate would represent the accused. (!) (!)
• Specific Incident of Violence: Advocate Manoj Shukla filed a bail application on 05-02-2026. In retaliation, Bar members stormed his office, set his furniture on fire, and burnt his effigy. (!) (!)
• Impact on Legal Representation: The atmosphere of fear created by the violence dissuaded any advocate from representing the petitioners, depriving them of access to legal remedies. (!)
• Petitioners' Relief Sought: The petitioners approached the Court under Article 32 seeking release on bail and transfer of proceedings to a neutral jurisdiction (Delhi). (!)
• Court's Findings on Bail: The Court found the denial of bail unjustified as the petitioners were performing their duties, and their continued custody violated Article 21 (Right to Liberty). (!) (!)
• Court's Directives:
  • Petitioners were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds. (!)
  • Proceedings were transferred to Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, to ensure fair trial and representation. (!)
  • The Director General of Police, UP, was directed to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners. (!)
• Condemnation of Conduct: The Court condemned the hooliganism by Bar members, tarnishing the image of the legal profession, and directed the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action. (!) (!)
• Disposal: The writ petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of. (!) (!) (!)