Delhi High Court noted that judges, similar to other members of society, value their reputation as a significant social and professional asset. The court pointed out that by continuously revealing the identity of the judicial officer, the accused aimed to exploit a judicial system where judges, concerned about their reputation, frequently refrain from speaking out openly and publicly in their defense.
Delhi High Court has emphatically stated that being a judicial officer does not imply relinquishing fundamental rights that are otherwise available to all citizens. This landmark statement came during a case involving the denial of bail to an individual accused of deceiving a woman and her family. The woman, notably, is the sister of a judicial officer.
Also read- Delhi High Court Overturns CIC Order On PM CARES Fund Disclosure (lawchakra.in)
The court’s observations were clear and firm:
“Similarly as an accused cannot be denied justice in case a judicial officer or his family member is a complainant in a criminal case, the judicial officer and his family too cannot be denied justice in case they are victims, as it will amount to denying fundamental, private and social rights to a judicial officer and his family which are otherwise available to other citizens and persons of the community. Being a judicial officer should not result in denial of justice to him or his family in his individual capacity and be merely dismissed as occupational hazards.”
The case in question involved a man who, despite being already married, deceived a woman he met on a matrimonial website into marrying him. The prosecution’s allegations were severe, stating that the main accused had misrepresented his marital status and had shown interest in numerous profiles on the matrimonial site. The applicant, a teacher of the main accused, was accused of facilitating this deceit.
The court denied bail to the applicant, finding prima facie evidence of his involvement in misleading the complainant and her parents about the main accused’s marital status. However, the court took strong exception to the applicant’s argument that the complainant’s brother being a judicial officer influenced the filing of the FIR and the denial of bail.
In a powerful statement, the court asserted,
“Moreover, a judicial officer by virtue of being a judicial officer does not waive his fundamental rights which are available to all other citizens of the country as also his social and private rights to look after and stand by his family. He also has a right as the biological sibling of the complainant/victim to stand by her and his family and taking action against any person who brings harm or disrepute to his family.”
The court emphasized that judges, like other citizens, value their reputation as a crucial social and professional asset. It criticized the accused for attempting to exploit the judicial system by repeatedly disclosing the identity of the judicial officer.
“To suggest that since the person cheated is kin of a judicial officer and if bail is not granted, it would amount to taking sides in the judicial system will amount to judging the judicial system with a myopic eye and suggest that a judicial system is so fragile that it would take sides and not do justice. To take a contrary view can also be seen to amount to unjustifiably suspecting a person of interference due to his occupation without any evidence and would result in doing injustice to him, in a zeal to appear just,”
the court remarked.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the bail plea and issued a directive for future filings in cases involving sexual offences, mandating that the first page of such filings must include a certificate or note from the counsel, ensuring that the identity of the complainant or other involved parties is not disclosed. This directive aligns with practice directions issued by the court to protect the identity of victims of sexual assault, reinforcing the court’s commitment to justice and the rights of individuals, irrespective of their professional or familial connections.
Bail Application No. 3635/2022 titled as “Saleem v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.”
