Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 254
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) NO(S). 109 OF 2026
VISHVJEET AND OTHERS ..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The custodians of justice (Members of the
District Bar Association, Barabanki) have turned into
perpetrators of violence, which has led the petitioners
to knock the doors of this Court to protect their
Fundamental Rights by way of this writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, preferred by the petitioners,
presents a sorry state of affairs with respect to the
conduct of law professionals, particularly in the State
of Uttar Pradesh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.03.18
11:22:48 IST
Reason:
1
3. The petitioners are contractual employees of a
company, named, M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering
Pvt. Ltd., and are permanent residents of the State of
Madhya Pradesh. They were posted for toll collection
duty at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-
Sultanpur Highway, in District Barabanki, Uttar
Pradesh.
th
4. On 14 January, 2026, an advocate, namely,
1
Mr. Ratnesh Shukla , allegedly refused to pay the
requisite toll charges while passing through the said
toll plaza. Consequently, a verbal spat ensued
between the complainant and the staff posted at the
toll plaza, which subsequently escalated into a
scuffle. It is alleged that the petitioners, being the
employees of the operating company and posted at
the toll plaza, assaulted the complainant.
5. An F.I.R., bearing No. 15/2026 came to be
registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District Barabanki on
th
14 January, 2026 at the instance of the
complainant for the offences punishable under
1
hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘complainant’
2
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the grounds
of arrest were not communicated to them at the time
of their arrest. The petitioners were thereafter
produced before the learned A.C.J.M., Barabanki and
were remanded to judicial custody by order dated
th
16 January, 2026. It is further averred in the writ
petition that the remand proceedings do not reflect
compliance with the mandatory requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused
persons.
7. It is also stated that, immediately after the
registration of the F.I.R., members of the Bar
Association started violent protests, as is the usual
feature these days. Most notably, what is most
unfortunate is that even the Bar Council of Uttar
Pradesh joined the fray and addressed a letter to the
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh requesting
invocation of the provisions of National Security Act
against the petitioners even though the incident
pertained to a trivial scuffle.
3
8. It is further stated that a resolution was passed
and circulated within the local bar to the effect that
no advocate would represent the accused persons in
connection with the FIR No. 15/2026.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid resolution, one
advocate, namely, Shri Manoj Shukla, displayed
considerable courage and filed a bail application on
th
behalf of the petitioners on 5 February, 2026.
Shortly thereafter, the members of the Bar resorted
to unruly behaviour and the office furniture of the
said advocate was set on fire, and his effigy was also
burnt. The news relating to these acts of hooliganism
and arson has been published in the local
newspapers, and the copies thereof have been
annexed with the writ petition. The photographs
placed on record clearly depict that the furniture of
the advocate was set to fire. The news report of these
incidents as published in the ‘Dainik Bhaskar’
th
newspaper, Lucknow City Edition dated 6 February,
2026, is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready
reference: -
“Dainik Bhaskar
Lucknow City 06-02-2026
4
Lawyers burned the belongings of a colleague who had
secured bail for the toll employees who assaulted them.
A commotion ensued when the lawyer secretly filed a
bail application for the accused.
A lawyer versus lawyer dispute erupted between lawyers
on Thursday in the Barabanki district court premises.
A massive uproar and arson erupted when it was
revealed that an advocate had filed a bail petition for toll
workers, going against the Bar Association's collective
decision. Hundreds of angry advocates stormed the
lawyer's office and set tables and chairs on fire. This
incident relates to an assault on an advocate at the
Haidergarh toll plaza. Toll workers not only assaulted
the advocate but also abused him. Angered by this
incident, lawyers from Lucknow and Barabanki
launched a major protest.
After which the police sent the accused to jail. On
Thursday, lawyers learned that Advocate Manoj Shukla,
in violation of the bar's decision, had secretly filed a bail
petition for the toll workers in court.
This news heated up the atmosphere. A large group of
lawyers, led by District Bar Association President
Narendra Verma, arrived at Mr. Manoj’s desk. Mr.
Manoj was not present, but the lawyers threw his desk
and chairs onto the street and set them on fire.”
9. The petitioners have submitted that such acts
of rampant violence by the members of the bar
created an atmosphere of fear, and thereby
dissuaded any further attempts to represent the
petitioners. Resultantly, no advocate in Barabanki,
or even from the nearby places is willing to represent
the petitioners and rather attempts made for
representation of the petitioners have been
5
specifically denied on account of atmosphere of fear
created by the members of Bar.
10. Resultantly, the petitioners having been
deprived of access to legal remedies in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, have approached this Court by way of
the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia , a direction
to be released on bail and for transfer of the
proceedings of the criminal case arising from FIR No.
15/2026 registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District
Barabanki to a competent Court in Delhi.
11. Notice has been served on the respondents and
Mr. Rohit K Singh, has entered appearance on behalf
of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
12. The facts averred in the writ petition have not
been denied.
13. In view of the emergent nature of the
proceedings, wherein personal liberty of the
Company’s employees, who were bonafide performing
their duties at a toll plaza, has remained curtailed for
more than two months, we proceed to hear and
6
decide the writ petition without awaiting the reply of
the respondents.
14. The facts noted hereinabove reveal a very sorry
state of affairs. The legal profession, which was once
regarded as a noble profession, has clearly been
tainted and tarnished by the acts of hooliganism
perpetrated pursuant to the fracas which took place
th
at the toll plaza on 14 January, 2026. We can
understand the sentiment of fraternity amongst the
lawyers but that, by no means, can justify the acts of
violence and lawlessness which ensued when a brave
lawyer came forward to defend the accused. These
deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be
deprecated. The disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar
Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps
in this regard.
15. A bare perusal of the FIR is sufficient to satisfy
us that it was not a case wherein the accused-
petitioners could have been denied bail. There is no
dispute that the petitioners were performing their
duties at the toll plaza where the incident happened.
Possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant
may have resisted the attempt of the petitioners in
7
demanding toll (rightly so) resulting into a spat
between the complainant and the employees of the
toll plaza i.e., the petitioners herein.
16. In these circumstances, 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 Fundamental Right of
Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India warranting exercise of the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this
Court by Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
17. Resultantly, we hereby direct that the
petitioners shall forthwith be released on bail, upon
furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the
concerned Magistrate. In order to ensure that the
accused get proper legal representation and a fair
trial, we direct that the proceedings arising out of the
FIR No.15/2026 shall stand transferred to the Tis
Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, i.e.,
remand, filing of result of investigation, and trial.
Upon the case file being received in the jurisdictional
Court at Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, the trial Court
may set appropriate additional conditions for bail.
8
18. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh
shall be responsible for the safety and security of the
petitioners, and shall ensure that upon their release
on bail, the petitioners are duly escorted to a safe
location.
19. Before parting, we condemn the role of the
members of the bar at Barabanki, who indulged into
hooliganism by damaging the furniture etc. of the
advocate, who had filed the bail application on behalf
of the petitioners.
20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
21. The Registry is directed to forthwith forward a
copy of this Order to the Director General of Police,
Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India for
compliance/appropriate action.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 17, 2026.
9
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) NO(S). 109 OF 2026
VISHVJEET AND OTHERS ..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The custodians of justice (Members of the
District Bar Association, Barabanki) have turned into
perpetrators of violence, which has led the petitioners
to knock the doors of this Court to protect their
Fundamental Rights by way of this writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, preferred by the petitioners,
presents a sorry state of affairs with respect to the
conduct of law professionals, particularly in the State
of Uttar Pradesh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.03.18
11:22:48 IST
Reason:
1
3. The petitioners are contractual employees of a
company, named, M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering
Pvt. Ltd., and are permanent residents of the State of
Madhya Pradesh. They were posted for toll collection
duty at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-
Sultanpur Highway, in District Barabanki, Uttar
Pradesh.
th
4. On 14 January, 2026, an advocate, namely,
1
Mr. Ratnesh Shukla , allegedly refused to pay the
requisite toll charges while passing through the said
toll plaza. Consequently, a verbal spat ensued
between the complainant and the staff posted at the
toll plaza, which subsequently escalated into a
scuffle. It is alleged that the petitioners, being the
employees of the operating company and posted at
the toll plaza, assaulted the complainant.
5. An F.I.R., bearing No. 15/2026 came to be
registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District Barabanki on
th
14 January, 2026 at the instance of the
complainant for the offences punishable under
1
hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘complainant’
2
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the grounds
of arrest were not communicated to them at the time
of their arrest. The petitioners were thereafter
produced before the learned A.C.J.M., Barabanki and
were remanded to judicial custody by order dated
th
16 January, 2026. It is further averred in the writ
petition that the remand proceedings do not reflect
compliance with the mandatory requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest to the accused
persons.
7. It is also stated that, immediately after the
registration of the F.I.R., members of the Bar
Association started violent protests, as is the usual
feature these days. Most notably, what is most
unfortunate is that even the Bar Council of Uttar
Pradesh joined the fray and addressed a letter to the
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh requesting
invocation of the provisions of National Security Act
against the petitioners even though the incident
pertained to a trivial scuffle.
3
8. It is further stated that a resolution was passed
and circulated within the local bar to the effect that
no advocate would represent the accused persons in
connection with the FIR No. 15/2026.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid resolution, one
advocate, namely, Shri Manoj Shukla, displayed
considerable courage and filed a bail application on
th
behalf of the petitioners on 5 February, 2026.
Shortly thereafter, the members of the Bar resorted
to unruly behaviour and the office furniture of the
said advocate was set on fire, and his effigy was also
burnt. The news relating to these acts of hooliganism
and arson has been published in the local
newspapers, and the copies thereof have been
annexed with the writ petition. The photographs
placed on record clearly depict that the furniture of
the advocate was set to fire. The news report of these
incidents as published in the ‘Dainik Bhaskar’
th
newspaper, Lucknow City Edition dated 6 February,
2026, is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready
reference: -
“Dainik Bhaskar
Lucknow City 06-02-2026
4
Lawyers burned the belongings of a colleague who had
secured bail for the toll employees who assaulted them.
A commotion ensued when the lawyer secretly filed a
bail application for the accused.
A lawyer versus lawyer dispute erupted between lawyers
on Thursday in the Barabanki district court premises.
A massive uproar and arson erupted when it was
revealed that an advocate had filed a bail petition for toll
workers, going against the Bar Association's collective
decision. Hundreds of angry advocates stormed the
lawyer's office and set tables and chairs on fire. This
incident relates to an assault on an advocate at the
Haidergarh toll plaza. Toll workers not only assaulted
the advocate but also abused him. Angered by this
incident, lawyers from Lucknow and Barabanki
launched a major protest.
After which the police sent the accused to jail. On
Thursday, lawyers learned that Advocate Manoj Shukla,
in violation of the bar's decision, had secretly filed a bail
petition for the toll workers in court.
This news heated up the atmosphere. A large group of
lawyers, led by District Bar Association President
Narendra Verma, arrived at Mr. Manoj’s desk. Mr.
Manoj was not present, but the lawyers threw his desk
and chairs onto the street and set them on fire.”
9. The petitioners have submitted that such acts
of rampant violence by the members of the bar
created an atmosphere of fear, and thereby
dissuaded any further attempts to represent the
petitioners. Resultantly, no advocate in Barabanki,
or even from the nearby places is willing to represent
the petitioners and rather attempts made for
representation of the petitioners have been
5
specifically denied on account of atmosphere of fear
created by the members of Bar.
10. Resultantly, the petitioners having been
deprived of access to legal remedies in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, have approached this Court by way of
the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia , a direction
to be released on bail and for transfer of the
proceedings of the criminal case arising from FIR No.
15/2026 registered at P.S. Haidergarh, District
Barabanki to a competent Court in Delhi.
11. Notice has been served on the respondents and
Mr. Rohit K Singh, has entered appearance on behalf
of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
12. The facts averred in the writ petition have not
been denied.
13. In view of the emergent nature of the
proceedings, wherein personal liberty of the
Company’s employees, who were bonafide performing
their duties at a toll plaza, has remained curtailed for
more than two months, we proceed to hear and
6
decide the writ petition without awaiting the reply of
the respondents.
14. The facts noted hereinabove reveal a very sorry
state of affairs. The legal profession, which was once
regarded as a noble profession, has clearly been
tainted and tarnished by the acts of hooliganism
perpetrated pursuant to the fracas which took place
th
at the toll plaza on 14 January, 2026. We can
understand the sentiment of fraternity amongst the
lawyers but that, by no means, can justify the acts of
violence and lawlessness which ensued when a brave
lawyer came forward to defend the accused. These
deplorable acts of hooliganism deserve to be
deprecated. The disciplinary body, i.e., the Bar
Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps
in this regard.
15. A bare perusal of the FIR is sufficient to satisfy
us that it was not a case wherein the accused-
petitioners could have been denied bail. There is no
dispute that the petitioners were performing their
duties at the toll plaza where the incident happened.
Possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant
may have resisted the attempt of the petitioners in
7
demanding toll (rightly so) resulting into a spat
between the complainant and the employees of the
toll plaza i.e., the petitioners herein.
16. In these circumstances, 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 Fundamental Right of
Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India warranting exercise of the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this
Court by Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
17. Resultantly, we hereby direct that the
petitioners shall forthwith be released on bail, upon
furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the
concerned Magistrate. In order to ensure that the
accused get proper legal representation and a fair
trial, we direct that the proceedings arising out of the
FIR No.15/2026 shall stand transferred to the Tis
Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for all further actions, i.e.,
remand, filing of result of investigation, and trial.
Upon the case file being received in the jurisdictional
Court at Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, the trial Court
may set appropriate additional conditions for bail.
8
18. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh
shall be responsible for the safety and security of the
petitioners, and shall ensure that upon their release
on bail, the petitioners are duly escorted to a safe
location.
19. Before parting, we condemn the role of the
members of the bar at Barabanki, who indulged into
hooliganism by damaging the furniture etc. of the
advocate, who had filed the bail application on behalf
of the petitioners.
20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
21. The Registry is directed to forthwith forward a
copy of this Order to the Director General of Police,
Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India for
compliance/appropriate action.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 17, 2026.
9