Delhi High Court Orders Administrative Enquiry Against Judges For Allegedly Influencing Proceedings In A Rape Case
The High Court found prima facie material indicating that judicial officers were in contact with the prosecutrix at a crucial stage of investigation, warranting administrative enquiry and action in accordance with law.
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ordered an administrative enquiry into the conduct of judicial officers who were allegedly found to be in contact with the prosecutrix in an alleged rape case during the course of investigation.
The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a case of alleged sexual assault. The State and the prosecutrix sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail on the ground that the accused, aided by influential persons, attempted to derail the investigation.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Amit Mahajan, while examining the case, observed that “an administrative enquiry into the conduct of the concerned judicial officers, who were in contact with the prosecutrix, is also warranted, and it is directed that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken in this regard.”
Advocate Jitendra Kumar Jha represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
An FIR was registered alleging rape, criminal intimidation, and other offences. During the investigation, the accused approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was allowed.
The complainant and the State challenged the order before the High Court, alleging that the accused exerted influence over witnesses and attempted to obstruct the investigation. The prosecution brought on record that the prosecutrix had been contacted repeatedly and allegedly pressured.
Call Detail Records were placed before the Court, pointing to communication between the accused and third parties wielding influence in judicial and administrative circles. It was further alleged that certain judicial officers communicated with the prosecutrix while the case was pending.
On these grounds, the State moved for cancellation of anticipatory bail and for directions to ensure a free and fair investigation.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court conducted a detailed examination of the allegations, the evidence placed on record, and the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Court. It held that material placed before it raised substantial doubts about the fairness of the process leading to the grant of anticipatory bail and the possibility of interference with the investigation.
The Bench noted serious concern arising from the revelation that judicial officers were in contact with the prosecutrix during the pendency of the investigation. The Court held that such conduct may undermine the neutrality of the judicial process. The Bench emphasised that confidence in the justice system cannot be eroded by actions of those required to maintain impartiality.
The Court observed that anticipatory bail can be cancelled if the accused attempts to influence witnesses or impede the investigation. After examining phone records and witness statements, the Bench held that there was sufficient material to indicate attempts to obstruct justice.
The Court reiterated that investigations in sexual offence cases must be free from external pressure. It held that communication between judicial officers and the prosecutrix, irrespective of intention, had the potential to compromise independence of proceedings.
“One of the main tenets to cancel bail is interference with the process of law. The circumstances brought forth in the present proceedings are so overwhelming that they have shocked the conscience of this Court and the same reflect that there is apparent interference with the administration of justice, which warrants interference with the liberty granted to Respondent”, the Court concluded.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused. Directions were issued to ensure that the investigation proceeds without interference. The Court also ordered that an administrative enquiry be initiated against the judicial officers concerned, with appropriate action to be taken as per law.
Cause Title: P.J. v. State Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9755)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Jitendra Kumar Jha and Bhagwan Jha
Respondents: Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP, Senior Advocates Vikas Pahwa and Madhav Khurana, with Advocates Aarushi Singh, Natasha Garg and others