While setting aside an order granting bail to an accused, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the concerned Magistrate was conscious of her consanguinity with the accused, and this rendered the impugned Order, untenable ab initio. The Bench, however, granted interim relief to the accused by ordering him to continue to remain on bail till December 23, 2025.

The petitioner-complainant approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner had sought for setting aside of the regular bail granted to the respondent accused, who was booked under Sections 195-A, 506 and 201 of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held, “The peculiar factual conspectus of the case in hand as also the material available before this Court, unequivocally reflect that the concerned Magistrate was conscious of her consanguinity with the respondent No.2. When scrutinized through the objective of a prudent and reasonable individual, this factum inexorably leads to the conclusion that a manifest apprehension of partiality, constituting bias-in-law, is decipherable on part of the concerned Magistrate, rendering the impugned Order, untenable ab initio. The gravity of this legal infirmity is exacerbated by the fact that the impugned Order was pronounced by the concerned Magistrate while sitting in vacation roster. Ergo, in all the fairness, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside on this score.”

Advocate Fateh Saini represented the Petitioner while Additional Advocate General Tarun Aggarwal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The FIR was registered based on a complaint filed by the petitioner alleging therein that his maternal uncle had a dispute with some persons. An FIR was registered at the Police Station. Thereafter, on the same day, accused Vinod Walia got registered an FIR against the complainant/petitioner, his uncle and his family. It was alleged that the said Vinod Walia, who earlier worked in the police is now a lawyer, and the other accused had been threatening the complainant, his family and relatives since the aforesaid incident. The complainant-petitioner further alleged that some unknown persons had been following him, and murder threats were also being made. The complainant claimed that the call details and records of Anil, Rahul, Shekhar and the other accused should be checked and thoroughly investigated.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the specific stand of the petitioner that the concerned Magistrate is a relative of the respondent accused. On this aspect, the Bench asserted that a Judge/Magistrate may possess remote or highly attenuated collateral consanguinity with a litigant, the existence of which may remain genuinely unknown to the concerned Judge/Magistrate. “Where the Judge/Magistrate is conscious of or apprised of such a connection, which has the potential of creating apprehension of biasness/prejudice in the minds of a reasonable person, the paramount duty of judicial propriety compels an immediate and sua sponte exercise of recusal from the proceeding”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the concerned Magistrate was conscious of her consanguinity with the second respondent. Coming to the aspect of quashing of the order, the Bench noted the nature of the offences alleged against the respondent accused, as also the conspicuous absence of any substantial material hinting towards the respondent having misused the concession of bail. The Bench also found no good ground to interfere with the merits of the impugned order. It was noticed that the accused has been on regular bail for the last two years and the trial was stated to be ongoing. “These factors, in favour of the respondent No.2, impels this Court not to interfere with the impugned order on this score”, it added.

The Bench was, however, of the view that the impugned order must be set aside, solely, on account of it being tainted by an inherent bias-in-law. The Bench could not overlook the considerable lapse of time since the regular bail was granted to the respondent.

The Bench thus quashed the impugned order and set aside the regular bail granted to the second respondent accused. The Bench further ordered, “The respondent No.2 is directed to cause appearance before the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ambala on or before 23.12.2025. He shall continue to remain on bail, on the bonds etc. furnished by him earlier, till 23.12.2025. In case he so causes appearance and files a plea for grant of regular bail, the same shall be positively decided on the same day. In case respondent No.2 does not so cause appearance, said CJM shall take requisite steps to secure his presence and send him to custody, as per law.”

Cause Title: Akash Walia v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:173537)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Fateh Saini, Sangeeta Sharma, Harshdeep Kaur, Neetu Rana

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Tarun Aggarwal, Advocates Abhinav Sood, Arshbir, Nitesh Jhanjaria

Click here to read/download Order


Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Sumeet Goel

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.