Delhi Court Questions Arrest Protocol in Road Rage Bail Case

The Delhi Court has raised concerns over arrest procedures in a road rage case, granting bail to an accused who had complied with investigation orders. The court highlighted potential legal missteps following the issuance and compliance with appearance notices in light of the alleged injuries in the Wazirabad incident.

The Delhi Court has expressed serious reservations about the arrest protocols followed in a road rage case, where the accused had already complied with investigation orders. The court's remarks surfaced while granting regular bail to Tarun, an accused who had previously joined the investigation as instructed by the authorities. Tarun was arrested subsequently by the investigating officer, a move that the court labeled as a potential violation of legal procedures.

Vacation District Judge Neeraj Sharma, while addressing the bail plea, noted that once an accused has complied with the notice under Section 35(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Sanhita (BNS), the presumption should be that the arrest isn't necessary unless compelling reasons suggest otherwise. The judge noted that the investigating officer was aware of the severity of the injuries before issuing the notice, which undermines the rationale for the arrest following compliance with said notice.

The defence argued that the arrest was unwarranted as Tarun was charged with Section 117 of BNS after he had voluntarily joined the investigation post-notice. The prosecution contended that the seriousness of the alleged offense justified the need for arrest, further claiming the possibility of witness tampering. However, the court sided with the defense, underscoring the impropriety of the arrest without substantiated reasons.

(With inputs from agencies.)