New Delhi, October 29 — The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to advocate Vikas Yadav, who is accused of molesting a woman and forcibly disrobing her husband and son during an alleged assault on the family in Laxmi Nagar, observing that being an advocate is no licence for lawlessness. The allegations against Yadav are yet to be tried and he has not been convicted.
Source: LiveLaw
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that granting anticipatory bail in the circumstances would send a wrong signal to society and erode public confidence in the rule of law. The case is Vikas Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Source: Bar and Bench
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on January 2 following a dispute over a gymnasium operating in the basement of the complainant's house. The advocate's father was allegedly looking after the gym and had refused to vacate the basement and the parking space outside the house. When the complainant, Rita Garg, and her family members attempted to enter the basement to get a blocked kitchen pipeline repaired, a confrontation allegedly ensued.
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons assaulted the family members, with the advocate and other accused allegedly dragging and beating the complainant's husband. The complainant was allegedly assaulted and molested, while her husband and son were forcibly disrobed. The court noted that the prosecution relied on the injured persons' statements, medical records and CCTV footage, and that the complainant's husband had suffered a fracture of the right mandible, allegedly caused by an assault with a gym rod.
Highlighting the psychological trauma caused by the alleged public disrobing of the complainant's son, the court observed that the CCTV footage depicting the assault was, in its words, shocking and barbaric, to say the least.
The court noted that Yadav had been declared a proclaimed offender on October 12, 2026, after repeated efforts to trace him and the failure to execute non-bailable warrants. Rejecting his contention that the pendency of his anticipatory bail application prevented the Magistrate from declaring him a proclaimed offender, the court observed that no order had stayed those proceedings.
The court clarified that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender, but such relief may be granted only in exceptional circumstances, including where the court forms a prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the accused. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it held that the present case did not satisfy this test.
The court also rejected the argument that the applicant's status as a practising advocate weighed in his favour. It observed that all advocates, being officers of the court, deserve respect, but that tenet cannot be extended to an advocate who indulges in such brazen lawlessness, publicly and with such impunity.
The court further noted the prosecution's submission that the DVR containing CCTV footage from inside the gym had been removed, and held that custodial interrogation was genuinely required to recover the DVR — another factor weighing against bail. Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting relief, it dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The FIR in the case is FIR No. 04/2026, registered at Laxmi Nagar police station, according to reports of the proceedings.