Back
Street Spat Erupts into Legal Firefight: P&H HC Grants Bail in Dueling Assault Claims
In a neighbourhood feud that escalated from a blocked roadway to brutal allegations of attempted murder, the has granted to Saurav @ Saurav Dhaiya, the lead accused in an FIR accusing him of leading a vicious attack on lawyer Anil Kumar Antil. Justice Surya Partap Singh ruled on , emphasizing the clash's nature as a "" dispute where neither side's aggression could be pinpointed at this nascent stage.
The decision came amid heightened tensions, with the observing a one-day strike demanding strict action against the accused, underscoring the complainant's professional standing and the local legal fraternity's involvement.
From Rickshaw Blockade to Bamboo Beatdown: The Spark
The trouble brewed on , in Rishi Colony, Kami Road, Sonipat. Anil Kumar Antil, en route to park his car, encountered a rickshaw obstructing the street—allegedly parked by associates of Saurav Dhaiya. After honking futilely for 8-10 minutes, Antil moved the rickshaw to a vacant plot. A rude phone call followed, and later that afternoon around 4:00 PM, as Antil drove home, he claimed Dhaiya and others waylaid him with bamboo sticks reinforced with pointed objects.
Antil alleged the mob smashed his windshield, beat him savagely—Dhaiya personally landing 4-5 blows to his head causing bleeding and unconsciousness—and tried dragging him from the car. This led to FIR No. 13 at under , with later additions of .
But a counter-narrative emerged: FIR No. 12, lodged by Vishram Singh Rathore the same day under , portrayed Antil as the aggressor who rammed his car over Rita and Bishram's legs, causing fractures.
Petitioner's Plea: "We're the Real Victims"
Dhaiya's counsel, , flipped the script, arguing undue influence by the complainant—a lawyer whose clout prompted the bar strike, deterring Dhaiya from approaching lower courts. Key points: - Antil's injuries (three from blunt weapons, none grievous per ). - Rita and Bishram's leg fractures proved Antil's aggression. - established the true victims. - Co-accused arrested sans notice, violating Supreme Court guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022, reinforced 2026).
No criminal history for Dhaiya, and video footage didn't conclusively damn him.
Prosecution's Pushback: "Pre-Planned Murder Bid"
State counsel and complainant's countered fiercely. Antil was the innocent passerby; the morning rickshaw move enraged Dhaiya's group into a conspiracy. The assault was "intense" and lethal—car wrecked, head blows intended to kill. Dhaiya, absconding, needed custody for weapon recovery; gravity of barred bail. They dismissed the cross-story as fabrication.
Court's Calculus: Balancing Blades in a Fog of Claims
Justice Singh meticulously weighed 10 factors after reviewing records and video footage : - Non-grievous blunt-force injuries to Antil. - mirroring the incident. - No antecedents, no tampering risk, investigation cooperation feasible sans custody. - Weapon recovery joinable via directives; no fruitful custodial gains anticipated.
Citing Satender Kumar Antil for arrest norms and for direct High Court access in "extraordinary" scenarios—like the bar strike blocking sessions court—the bench found the hierarchy exception justified.
"since it is a case of , it is not possible to ascertain at this stage which of the two parties was aggressor"
"all the abovementioned three injuries were caused by blunt weapon"
"there is nothing on record to show that of the petitioner is likely to produce any fruitful result"
Bail Granted: A Temporary Truce in the Turf War
Dhaiya secures upon arrest, bonds to arresting officer's satisfaction, mandated to join probe and follow conditions. Matter listed .
This ruling signals caution in cross-version street brawls: pre-arrest protection leans toward liberty when evidence blurs blame, injuries underwhelm gravity, and custody smells superfluous. For Sonipat's feuding lanes, it's a breather—but the full trial will draw the real battle lines.
