Punjab and Haryana High Court Seeks Response from Judicial Magistrate Over Bail Granted to Relative; The Registrar General has also been directed to inform whether any administrative inquiry has been initiated regarding the alleged misconduct in granting bail.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court requested a response from a judicial magistrate who allegedly granted bail to her relative in a case involving criminal intimidation.
Justice Sumeet Goel issued the order in response to a plea seeking to cancel the bail granted to the accused, Reshab Walia, by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (JMIC) Vandana.
The case is registered under Sections 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The bench also instructed the High Court’s Registrar General to report on any administrative inquiry conducted regarding the matter.
The Court ordered,
“Before proceeding further in the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to elicit comments from the concerned Judicial Officer namely Smt. Vandana, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to seek comments of the said officer (in a sealed cover) for the perusal of this Court and put up the same on the next date of hearing,”
The petition was filed by the complainant, Akash Walia, who argued that Judicial Officer Vandana is the cousin of the accused, Reshab Walia, and should not have presided over the case.
In response, the State of Haryana informed the Court that the judicial officer and the accused are merely distant relatives.
The Court noted in a recent order,
“Vandana Walia’s grandmother is the aunt of Reshabh Walia’s father Vinod Walia in long term relations, whereas Vandana Walia and Reshabh Walia are not real brothers and sisters but are distant relatives,”
Taking into account the State’s response, the Court has now called for comments from the judge and scheduled the matter for hearing on November 26.
Also Read: Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Judge for Abdicating Criminal Case Jurisdiction
In her bail order dated December 31, 2023, JMIC Vandana acknowledged the existence of counter FIRs between the accused and the complainant.
The trial judge questioned how Section 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) applied, noting that there was reportedly only a threat regarding a compromise in the other FIR,
“So, this is a procedural section which provides the procedure when there is an allegation under Section 195-A IPC. It clearly says that a complaint need to be made by the person when witnesses are threatened etc. Here in the present FIR nowhere the perusal of the remand papers and the whole police file, it is clear that there is any threaten to any witness and the evidence. Hence, question of adding the Section 195-A by the police is the reason known to the police himself.”
Also Read: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Tenant Can Never Become Owner of Rented Property
Consequently, JMIC Vandana granted bail to the accused, a decision that is now being contested before the High Court.
Advocate Fateh Saini represents petitioner Akash Walia, while Additional Advocate General Tarun Aggarwal appeared for the State of Haryana.
Advocates Abhinav Sood and Nitesh Jhajria are representing accused Reshab Walia.
Case Title: Akash Walia v State of Haryana
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
