LI Network
Published on: 28 January, 2024 at 00:30 IST
The Delhi High Court recently emphasized the fundamental and private rights of a judicial officer, affirming their entitlement to protect and support their family from harm or disrepute.
The Court’s decision came in response to a bail application dismissal for an accused who claimed injustice, citing the fact that the complainant’s family member is a judicial officer.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, leading the bench, asserted that being a judicial officer does not waive the officer’s fundamental rights available to all citizens, including the right to stand by and protect their family.
The Court dismissed the bail plea, highlighting that a judicial officer, like any other individual, has the right to take action against those causing harm or disrepute to their family.
The bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief in a case involving offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 419, 420, 493, 494, 495, 376, 109, 201, and 120B.
The case originated from a complaint where the complainant alleged that she had met the main applicant through the matrimonial site “Jeewansathi.com.” Subsequently, she discovered that the applicant was already married and had taken away her gold jewelry, mortgaging it for a bank loan.
The Court scrutinized the records and observed that despite the claims of the applicant, the involvement of another individual, Mohit, was evident.
The Court noted financial transactions and statements pointing to a conspiracy between the main applicant and Mohit.
Emphasizing that the familial relation of the complainant to a judicial officer does not diminish her right to justice, the Court asserted that denying her equal opportunities based on her brother’s profession would be a miscarriage of justice.
The Court further underscored that a judicial officer, solely by virtue of the position, does not relinquish inherent and fundamental rights. Such rights extend to both social and private aspects, allowing the judicial officer to attend to and support his family. Additionally, being the biological sibling of the complainant grants the judicial officer the right to stand by them and take action against those causing harm or disrepute.
The Court also addressed concerns about revealing the identity of the complainant and her brother, emphasizing the need for confidentiality and adherence to legal requirements.
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail application, highlighting the impermissibility of denying justice to an accused when a judicial officer or their family acts as a complainant. The court condemned attempts to scandalize a judicial officer and emphasized the importance of maintaining confidence in the legal system.
The Court directed the Registry to implement measures to ensure the confidentiality of victims in cases involving sexual offenses. Going forward, petitions must include a certificate stating that the complainant/victim’s identity isn’t disclosed.
Case Title: Mohit Pilania v The State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Anr