Exploiting Litigants By Portraying Judicial Influence Is A Serious Criminal Act: Punjab & Haryana Court Dismisses Bail Plea Of Driver Accused In ₹28.5 Lakh Bribery Case
It was alleged that the petitioner-driver took substantial amounts of money on false assurances and representations that favourable judicial orders could be procured through influence and illegal means.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the bail petition of an accused in a multi-crore fraud case in which unsuspecting litigants were allegedly duped into paying nearly ₹28.5 lakh on false assurances of procuring favourable orders from sitting judges of the High Court.
While rejecting the bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS, the Bench held that the allegations prima facie disclosed a well-orchestrated criminal scheme targeting gullible litigants and that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of public faith in the administration of justice.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed, “Taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession sought. The allegations, prima facie, disclose a well-orchestrated scheme whereby unsuspecting litigants were induced to part with substantial amounts of money on false assurances and representations that favourable judicial orders could be procured through influence and illegal means. Such allegations, if ultimately established, strike at the very foundation of public faith in the administration of justice”.
“…Any attempt by individuals to exploit innocent or gullible litigants by falsely portraying access or influence over judicial functioning for personal monetary gain not only constitutes a serious criminal act but also has the tendency to erode the sanctity, integrity and credibility of the judicial system itself…”, the Bench observed.
Advocate Shasak Jain appeared for the petitioner and Chhavi Sharma, AAG, Haryana appeared for the respondent.
The case originates from an FIR dated December 3, 2021, registered at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal, Haryana, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
The complainant, Gajraj son of Raghunath Singh, alleged that between 2019 and 2021, a group of accused persons, including the principal accused Mithun Kaushik, his father Rajender Kaushik, and a woman named Kiran, who claimed to be an advocate with judicial connections, induced him to part with substantial sums of money by falsely representing that they could influence judges at the Punjab & Haryana High Court and secure service benefits for his father, a retired government Patwari.
The petitioner was alleged to have accompanied the principal accused Mithun Kaushik on multiple occasions to collect money from the complainant and to have repeatedly assured the complainant that favourable judicial orders would be obtained.
The petitioner's counsel argued that his client was merely a driver by profession with no substantive role in the alleged fraud. The State counsel, however, maintained that the petitioner actively participated in the scheme by collecting money and providing assurances.
The court noted that 11 prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the matter had been committed to the Sessions Court following framing of charges for more serious offences. Finding no merit in the petition, it was dismissed.
“The institution of justice derives its legitimacy and strength from the confidence reposed in it by the common citizen…Acts of such nature cannot be viewed lightly, for they tarnish the image of the institution and undermine public confidence in the rule of law”, the Bench noted.
“This Court is also unable to ignore the specific allegations attributed to the petitioner regarding his active participation in collecting money and also of repeatedly assuring the complainant that favourable orders would be secured, through the influence, by the co-accused persons. The magnitude of the amount extracted from the complainant and the nature of the accusations levelled reflect a calculated and systematic design rather than an isolated or innocuous act”, the Bench said.
Cause Title: Jitender Singh Alias Jeetu v. State Of Haryana Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bahin, District Palwal, Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:079329)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Shasak Jain, Advocate.
Respondent: Chhavi Sharma, AAG, Haryana, assisted by PSI Surekha, P.S. Bahin.