While taking potshots at the growing tendency to blame Judges for not getting justice in courts, the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mohit Pilania vs The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr in Bail Appln. 4252/2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 : DHC : 510 that was reserved on 22.01.2024 and then finally pronounced on 24.01.2024 has observed unequivocally that like any common person, Judges are also entitled to private and social rights to look after their families. The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also added that it is wrong to suggest that a person accused of cheating the kin of Judge would not get justice because of the Judge’s influence. This was held so while rejecting the bail application that had been filed by Mohit Pilania who was accused of being an accomplice of one Aarav alias Ravi Gautam who allegedly raped and cheated a judicial officer’s sister on the false promise of marriage. It must be noted that the Bench also pulled up the accused person’s lawyer for revealing the identity of the victim which is strictly prohibited and the judicial officer in his pleadings.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 220/2021, registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 419/420/493/494/495/376/109/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The brief facts of the case are that the present case was registered on 02.12.2021 on the complaint of one Ms. ‘P’. In her complaint, she had alleged that she had met the main accused Aarav @ Ravi Gautam through online matrimonial site “Jeewansathi.com”. Ms. ‘P’ had married accused Aarav @ Ravi Gautam on 18.07.2021, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Hanuman Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. On 18.11.2021, she had received a phone call from a woman, who had introduced herself as Nikita, and had told her that accused Aarav was her husband. Ms. ‘P’ had realised that Aarav was already married to another lady when he had got married to her. The accused Aarav had also taken away her gold jewellery and had mortgaged it for bank loan. On 19.11.2021, she had lodged a complaint against him at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi and thereafter, the present FIR was registered.”
While continuing in same vein, the Bench mentions in para 3 that, “During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had obtained the profile details of the accused from the above-mentioned matrimonial website, and had found that the said profile was registered with mobile number 8920943365. The profile was created on 27.02.2019 with the name of Aarav Chaudhary, Mobile No. 8920943365 and E-mail ID “aarav007aryan@gmail.com”, DOB: 21-04- 1990 and marital status as “Never Married”. The profile creator had mentioned in his profile that his parents had died. Further, the profile creator had shown interest in about 1411 profiles of different age groups of females. The accused Aarav was arrested in the present case from House No. 222/3, Govindpuri, Delhi, on 13.12.2021.”
As it turned out, the Bench then discloses in para 4 that, “Further during investigation, on 15.12.2021, certified copy of marriage certificate no. T-20368/2020 dated 14.08.2020 was obtained from Arya Samaj Marriage Mandal, Khirkee Village, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. According to it, the accused Aarav had married another lady marriage, he had again married the complainant herein by keeping her in dark about his earlier marriage. On 30.12.2021, certified documents of marriage certificate No. 11835 and other documents related to the marriage of Ms. ‘P’ and Aarav dated 18.07.2021 were obtained from Incharge, Arya Samaj Mandir, 15 Hanuman Road, Connaught Place, Delhi.”
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 5 that, “On 01.12.2022, statement of Ms. ‘P’ was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she had corroborated her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. She had further revealed that the accused Aarav had applied for several loans in her name and PAN Card and had also transferred funds in different bank accounts. She had further alleged that the present accused/applicant Mohit had accompanied main accused Aarav on 11.12.2020, when the date of marriage was fixed in this case.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 6 that, “The present accused/applicant Mohit was arrested in the present case on 07.02.2022.”
Simply put, the Bench observes in para 10 that, “After going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that contrary to the assertion made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the role of the present applicant/accused Mohit is mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the FIR also mentions that only one person had attended the marriage from the side of main accused which became clear from the other statements that it was the present accused Mohit. A perusal of the further statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., including statement of complainant’s father, as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also reveals that there are specific allegations against the present accused that he had accompanied the main accused Arav to the house of the complainant where he had introduced himself as his friend and had told them that the parents of the main accused Arav had passed away. It is also specifically mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was transferred into the bank account of the present accused/applicant on false pretext made by the main accused Arav which has been proved during investigation from the complainant, which point out towards the conspiracy between the main accused and the present accused Mohit.”
Needless to say, the Bench reveals in para 11 that, “It is also apparent from the record that the present accused/applicant had attended the roka ceremony of the complainant and the main accused Aarav.”
Quite simply, the Bench states in para 12 that, “Further, it is also clear from the record and investigation carried out so far, that the present accused Mohit was in touch with the first wife of the main accused and there are call details, etc., between them which show that he was aware about the accused being married earlier and his having a child from his first wife.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 13 that, “Therefore, it has emerged from the record prima facie that it was the accused herein who had convinced the complainant and her parents for the marriage by misleading them and convincing them that the main accused was unmarried and his parents had passed away. On the said assurance, they had acted and the accused and complainant had got married. Moreover, the submissions made before this Court by the IO reveal that the present accused/applicant was a teacher of the main accused Arav and has, by hatching a criminal conspiracy, cheated the complainant and his family of about Rs. 50,000/-. As is clear from the investigation till date, the main accused Aarav has shown interest in 1411 profiles of women of different age groups on Jeevansathi.com and it is still a matter of investigation as to how many other women he has cheated, married, got engaged to for the purpose of cheating money from them.”
Quite forthrightly, the Bench observes in para 14 that, “As far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the brother of the complainant is a judicial officer and therefore, due to his influence, the FIR was registered and bail is not being granted to the present accused/applicant is concerned, in this regard, this Court takes strong objection to these submissions since it is not the submission alone which has been made before this Court, but the learned counsel for the accused has also filed on record an annexure – ‘E’ which reveals the name of the judicial officer, his designation and his present posting as well as the details of complainant herself which has been filed on record.”
More directly, the Bench points out in para 15 that, “The said annexure is a letter with the subject mentioned as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. The counsel for the accused should have been aware that the name of the complainant cannot be revealed in any record and that it is an offence to do so. Even the disclosure of name and designation as well as the present posting of the brother of the complainant is sufficient to disclose her identity which is also in contravention of provisions of Section 228A of IPC.”
Briefly stated, the Bench lays bare in para 16 that, “This Court notes that shockingly, in an earlier order of bail dated 12.10.2023, the learned Trial Court had also warned the learned counsel for disclosing the name of the complainant as well as the brother of the complainant, and had also written a letter to the Bar Council of Delhi to take action against him and to contemplate making guidelines in this regard.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 21 that, “The complainant in this case has been cheated and the present accused despite being the physical training instructor in school and teacher of the main accused as submitted by the IO had conspired with him to cheat the complainant and her family. To state that only because the brother of the victim is a judicial officer, the accused is not getting bail due to some influence without any iota of evidence in this regard is preposterous. Accepting this argument will be equivalent to accepting that a judicial officer in case of being victimized or being hurt or cheated as a family member, as in this case being the biological brother of the complainant, does not have fundamental right to get justice for himself, his family or his immediate kith and kin. The argument that the brother of the complainant was present during the marriage and therefore, the offence is not made out is equally meritless as his presence cannot absolve the accused of cheating him and his sister. By being a judicial officer, he does not have any extraordinary powers to have known that he was being cheated; rather it shows that he and his family have been a victim of cheating and trauma inflicted on his sister and his family. The complainant too cannot have lesser rights than other victims only because she is the sister of a judicial officer. All other rights available to other victims in a criminal case will remain available to her and to her family. There cannot be a special category created for such victims or their families on the basis of their occupation or occupation of their family members. Rather than being a victim of any undue influence, as has been alleged by the present applicant/accused, the accused himself through one after another attempt by himself and his counsel have tried to tarnish the image of a judicial officer and embarrass him by disclosing his identity repeatedly despite being warned by the learned ASJ concerned.”
Adding more to it, the Bench notes in para 22 that, “The allegations at this stage as elaborated in the preceding paragraphs reveal serious and grave allegations against the present accused as well as the co-accused. The co-accused has targeted innocent women and the present accused in this case has been his close associate to help him succeed in his nefarious design of misguiding the family of the complainant and leading her to get married to him and extracting huge amount of money to his own and the bank account of the present accused for which evidence is on record. Such accused persons need to be dealt with a stern hand so that if granted bail, they will not indulge in similar activities of spoiling lives of other women.”
Further, the Bench unequivocally holds in para 27 that, “The counsel for the accused and the accused were well conversant with the order of the learned Trial Court dated 12.10.2023, however, they have been persistent in filing annexure-E mentioning the name of the brother of the complainant and the complainant. Even mentioning the name of her brother would necessarily lead to disclosure of the identity of the complainant.”
Most significantly, the Bench propounds in para 28 that, “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. Only because the accused/applicant has failed to secure the desired order of bail from a Court, it cannot authorize him to make a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial officer and shake the confidence of the litigating community.”
Equally significant is what is then postulated in para 29 that, “Judges like most other people of the community care about the reputation to the extent that it is held as an important social and professional asset. By disclosing his identity repeatedly, it is the accused who is trying to take advantage of a judicial system where the judicial officers seldom speak openly and publicly for themselves for fear of loss of reputation. To suggest that since the person cheated is kin of judicial officer and if bail is not granted, it would amount to taking sides in judicial system will amount to judging 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.”
No less significant is what is then noted in para 30 that, “This Court notes that there are practice directions issued by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023. The directions were issued in compliance of the directions passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 3635/2022 titled as ‘Saleem v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.’ to ensure that the identity of victims of sexual assault is not disclosed in the petitions.”
Most commendably, the Bench directs in para 31 that, “Further, the Registry in these circumstances, is also directed to ensure that henceforth in any petition/applications etc. filed in cases involving sexual offences, a certificate/note be annexed with the first page of the petition by the counsel for the petitioner/applicant certifying that the name of the complainant/victim or any other name etc. has not been mentioned or divulged either in the body of the petition or in any of the annexures filed along with it which will divulge the identity of the victim. This has been necessitated since despite their being notification by the Central Government, judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and practice directions issued by this Court in past, to circumvent the same, an annexure was filed alongwith the petition.”
To be sure, the Bench directs further in para 33 that, “With regard to the present case, Registry is directed to immediately mask the name of the victim and the judicial officer in annexure – ‘E’ and particulars about the judicial officer mentioned in para 6 of the grounds of present bail application.”
As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 34 that, “Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.”
For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 35 that, “It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”
In sum, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear that the accused can’t say that he is not getting justice because complainant is Judge’s relative. So it would definitely be always in the best interests of all the accused always in all such cases to strictly pay heed to what the Delhi High Court has laid down so manifestly in this leading case. No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi