![Bar Boycott and Arson Left Toll Workers Without a Lawyer, Bail Granted and Case Shifted to Delhi: Supreme Court in Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2026 INSC 254]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: When a local Bar resolved that no advocate would defend toll plaza employees accused of assaulting a lawyer, and then burnt the furniture of the one advocate who filed their bail plea, the Supreme Court stepped in under Article 32. It ordered the employees' release on bail after more than two months in custody, transferred the case from Barabanki to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, made the UP DGP responsible for their safety, and condemned the conduct of the Barabanki Bar.
In Vishvjeet & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2026 INSC 254), the Supreme Court held that the continued custody of toll plaza employees for over two months, in a case arising from a scuffle over toll charges with an advocate, was "absolutely unjustified" and violated Article 21, since a bare perusal of the FIR showed it was not a case for denial of bail (paras 15–16). As members of the Barabanki Bar had created an atmosphere of fear in which no lawyer would represent the accused, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta transferred the proceedings to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, to ensure proper legal representation and a fair trial (paras 8–9, 17).
Status: Writ petition under Article 32 disposed of; petitioners directed to be released on bail on personal bonds; proceedings arising from FIR No. 15/2026 transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi; DGP, Uttar Pradesh directed to ensure petitioners' safety (paras 17–18, 20).
Headnote: Bail and Transfer Where Bar Boycott Denies Legal Representation
Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 32 – Personal liberty – Bail granted directly in writ jurisdiction – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) – Toll plaza scuffle with advocate – Bar Association resolution not to represent accused – Arson of defending advocate's furniture – Denial of access to legal representation – Transfer of criminal proceedings to another State – Fair trial – Safety of accused – Conduct of members of the Bar deprecated.
Held: (i) The sentiment of fraternity among lawyers cannot justify the violence and lawlessness unleashed when a lawyer came forward to defend the accused; such acts of hooliganism deserve to be deprecated and the Bar Council of India is expected to take appropriate steps (para 14).
(ii) A bare perusal of the FIR showed that this was not a case in which the petitioners could have been denied bail; they were on duty at the toll plaza, and the complainant may have resisted their demand for toll, which was rightly made (para 15).
(iii) Curtailment of liberty for over two months in such circumstances was absolutely unjustified and violative of Article 21, warranting the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 (para 16).
(iv) To secure proper legal representation and a fair trial, all further proceedings, including remand, filing of the result of investigation and trial, were transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, which may set additional bail conditions (para 17).
(v) The DGP, Uttar Pradesh is responsible for the petitioners' safety and must ensure they are escorted to a safe location on release (para 18).
(vi) The Court condemned the members of the Bar at Barabanki for the hooliganism against the advocate who had filed the bail application (para 19).
(paras 14–19)
Case Details: Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 INSC 254)
Final Outcome: Writ petition disposed of; bail granted on personal bonds; criminal proceedings transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi; safety directions to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh; copy to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action.
Case: Vishvjeet and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 254
Case No.: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 109 of 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Original Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 17 March 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (Order; no individual author named)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 32; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5)
Impugned Order: None – original writ petition under Article 32; the petitioners had been remanded to judicial custody by the A.C.J.M., Barabanki by order dated 16.01.2026 (paras 6, 10)
Counsel: Mr. Rohit K Singh for the State of Uttar Pradesh (para 11)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Members of the District Bar Association, Barabanki turned "perpetrators of violence", leaving the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court directly to protect their fundamental rights (paras 1, 9–10).
- As the facts in the writ petition were not denied and the petitioners' liberty had been curtailed for over two months, the Court decided the matter without awaiting the State's reply (paras 12–13).
- The FIR did not disclose a case for denial of bail, and continued custody violated Article 21 (paras 15–16).
- Where the accused cannot get a lawyer because of a Bar-created atmosphere of fear, the Court may transfer the entire proceedings to another State to secure a fair trial (paras 9, 17).
- The violence against the defending advocate was condemned, and the order was sent to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action (paras 14, 19, 21).
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioners, residents of Madhya Pradesh, were contractual employees of a company posted for toll collection at the Gotona Bara Toll Plaza on the Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway in District Barabanki. On 14.01.2026, an advocate allegedly refused to pay toll; a verbal spat escalated into a scuffle, and the petitioners were alleged to have assaulted him (paras 3–4).
FIR No. 15/2026 was registered the same day under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 311 and 3(5) BNS. The petitioners say the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them; they were remanded to judicial custody on 16.01.2026 (paras 5–6).
Members of the Bar began violent protests, and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the Chief Minister seeking invocation of the National Security Act against the petitioners. The local Bar resolved that no advocate would represent the accused (paras 7–8).
When one advocate filed a bail application on 05.02.2026, members of the Bar set his office furniture on fire and burnt his effigy, as reported in the Dainik Bhaskar of 06.02.2026. Thereafter no advocate in or near Barabanki was willing to represent the petitioners, who filed this writ petition seeking bail and transfer of the case to Delhi (paras 8–10).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the petitioners' continued custody violated their right to personal liberty under Article 21, warranting bail under Article 32 (paras 15–16).
- Whether the criminal proceedings should be transferred outside Uttar Pradesh to secure legal representation and a fair trial (paras 9–10, 17).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Petitioners' case (paras 6–10): The petitioners pleaded that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, that the Bar's resolution and violence created an atmosphere of fear, and that they had been deprived of access to legal remedies in Uttar Pradesh.
Facts undisputed; urgency (paras 11–13): Notice was served and the State appeared, but the facts averred were not denied. Given the emergent nature of the case and over two months of custody, the Court heard and decided the petition without awaiting a reply.
Conduct of the Bar (para 14): The Court described the legal profession, once regarded as noble, as "tainted and tarnished" by the hooliganism following the toll plaza incident, and said the Bar Council of India is expected to act.
No case for denial of bail (paras 15–16): The petitioners were admittedly on duty at the toll plaza, and the possibility that the complainant resisted their (rightful) demand for toll could not be ruled out. Denial of bail and over two months of custody was absolutely unjustified and violated Article 21.
Transfer to secure a fair trial (paras 17–18): To ensure proper legal representation and a fair trial, the Court transferred the proceedings to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, permitted that court to impose additional bail conditions, and made the DGP, Uttar Pradesh responsible for the petitioners' safety.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Petitioners to be released on bail forthwith on personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate (para 17).
- Proceedings arising from FIR No. 15/2026 transferred to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, for remand, filing of the result of investigation and trial; that court may set additional bail conditions (para 17).
- DGP, Uttar Pradesh responsible for the petitioners' safety and security, including escort to a safe location on release (para 18).
- Conduct of the members of the Bar at Barabanki condemned; Registry to send the order to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India for compliance or appropriate action (paras 19, 21).
- Writ petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of (paras 20, 22).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Where an accused is kept in custody in a case that does not warrant denial of bail, and is effectively denied legal representation because members of the local Bar have resolved not to defend him and used violence against a lawyer who did, the Supreme Court may, under Article 32, grant bail directly to protect personal liberty under Article 21 and transfer the proceedings to a court in another State to secure a fair trial. Fraternal sentiment among lawyers can never justify violence against a colleague who comes forward to defend an accused (paras 14–17).
Precedents Relied Upon
- No precedents were cited or discussed in this order; the Court decided the matter on the undisputed facts and Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution (paras 12–17).
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 14: "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."
Para 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."
Para 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."
Para 17: "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."
Para 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."
Para 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."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For accused persons facing Bar boycotts: Where local lawyers refuse to appear, the Supreme Court can be approached directly under Article 32 for bail and transfer of the case (paras 10, 16–17).
- For Bar Associations: Resolutions not to defend an accused, and violence against lawyers who do, have been condemned and referred to the Bar Council of India (paras 14, 19, 21).
- For advocates: The Court praised the lawyer who "displayed considerable courage" in filing the bail application despite the Bar's resolution (paras 8, 14).
- For police authorities: The State police chief can be made personally responsible for the safety of accused persons on release (para 18).
- For trial courts: A transferred court may set additional bail conditions after receiving the case file (para 17).
FAQs on Bail and Transfer After a Bar Boycott
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh?
It ordered the toll plaza employees' release on bail, transferred their criminal case from Barabanki to the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, and directed the UP DGP to ensure their safety (paras 17–18).
2. Why did the Court grant bail directly under Article 32?
Because the FIR did not disclose a case for denial of bail, the petitioners had been in custody for over two months, and that curtailment of liberty violated Article 21 (paras 15–16).
3. Why was the case transferred to Delhi?
Because the local Bar had resolved not to represent the accused and burnt the furniture of the advocate who filed their bail plea, so no lawyer nearby would appear for them; transfer was needed for proper representation and a fair trial (paras 8–9, 17).
4. Did the Court decide the plea that grounds of arrest were not communicated?
No. The plea is recorded as part of the petitioners' case, but the Court granted bail on the nature of the FIR and the length of custody (paras 6, 15–16).
5. What did the Court say about the lawyers' conduct?
It deprecated the acts of hooliganism, condemned the members of the Bar at Barabanki, and sent its order to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action (paras 14, 19, 21).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 254, Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, toll plaza employees bail, Barabanki Bar Association, Bar resolution not to defend accused, right to legal representation, Article 21, Article 32 bail, transfer of criminal case, Tis Hazari Courts, fair trial, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lawyers hooliganism, Bar Council of India, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Vishvjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).