Back
Slams 'Sorry State' of UP Lawyers: Bail for Toll Workers, Case to Delhi
In a blistering order, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on , granted bail to toll plaza employees Vishvjeet and others from Madhya Pradesh, who had been jailed for over two months following a scuffle with an advocate. The court transferred the entire criminal proceedings from Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, to in New Delhi, citing rampant violence by local lawyers that denied the accused a . This intervention under highlighted a "" in the legal profession, particularly in Uttar Pradesh.
Toll Dispute Turns Ugly: From Verbal Spat to Jail and Arson
The drama unfolded on , at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway in Barabanki. Petitioners, contractual employees of , demanded toll from . He allegedly refused, sparking a verbal exchange that escalated into a scuffle. An FIR No. 15/2026 was lodged at Haidergarh police station under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311, and 3(5) of the .
Arrested without grounds of arrest being communicated—as alleged—the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on . What followed was chaos: Bar Association members protested violently, the urged the Chief Minister to invoke the National Security Act, and a local resolution barred lawyers from representing the accused.
Brave Lawyer Targeted: Furniture Torched in Broad Daylight
Undeterred, filed a bail application on . Retribution was swift—hundreds of furious lawyers, led by , stormed his office, dragged out furniture, and set it ablaze. Local reports in
Dainik Bhaskar
( edition) captured the mayhem:
"Lawyers burned the belongings of a colleague who had secured bail for the toll employees who assaulted them."
This atmosphere of fear, the petitioners argued, stripped them of legal representation in Uttar Pradesh, forcing them to approach the for bail, quashing fears, and case transfer to Delhi.
Petitioners' Plea: Liberty Trumped by Bar Bullying
The writ petition under painted a grim picture: no grounds of arrest shared, non-compliant remand orders, and systematic denial of counsel due to threats. With respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and the complainant) issuing no reply—facts went unchallenged—the court noted the petitioners were merely dutiful employees in a "trivial scuffle," possibly triggered by the advocate's toll refusal.
No counter-arguments from the State emerged, as the bench expedited hearings given the "emergent nature" and two-month liberty curtailment.
Court's Razor-Sharp Rebuke: Tarnished
Deploring the "," the bench ruled the FIR warranted no bail denial:
"A
is sufficient to satisfy us that it was not a case wherein the accused-petitioners could have been denied bail."
Distinguishing fraternity from lawlessness, it invoked
, deeming prolonged detention
"absolutely unjustified and violative of the
."
No precedents were cited, but the ruling reinforces principles from bail jurisprudence——amid threats to access.
Key Observations
"The (Members of the , Barabanki) have turned into perpetrators of violence..."
"The legal profession, which was once regarded as a , has clearly been tainted and tarnished by the acts of ..."
"These deplorable acts of deserve to be deprecated. The disciplinary body, i.e., the is expected to take appropriate steps..."
"Denial of bail to the petitioners and the curtailment of their liberty for a period exceeding two months is absolutely unjustified and violative of the guaranteed under ..."
Liberty Restored: Bail, Transfer, and Safeguards
Final Orders : Petitioners released on personal bonds; case transferred to Tis Hazari for remand, investigation, and trial (with additional bail conditions possible). Uttar Pradesh DGP must ensure their safety and escort post-release. Copies sent to DGP and .
This sets a precedent against bar vigilantism, ensuring future accused aren't orphaned by peer pressure. As media echoed, it underscores that even in "trivial" frays, constitutional safeguards prevail over mob justice.
