The High Court of Delhi on November 7, 2025, directed that an administrative enquiry be initiated and appropriate action be taken against two judicial officers for their alleged role in contacting and attempting to influence a prosecutrix in a rape case.
Justice Amit Mahajan, stating the Court was “appalled to take notice of the involvement of judicial officers in a case of such nature,” ordered the enquiry while simultaneously setting aside the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused advocate. The Court found the circumstances “so overwhelming that they have shocked the conscience of this Court” and reflected an “apparent interference with the administration of justice.”
The order (in BAIL APPLN. 2818/2025) was passed on an application by the prosecutrix seeking cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to a 51-year-old advocate by an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on 16.07.2025.
The “Most Glaring Allegation”
The High Court’s decision to cancel bail and order the enquiry hinged on “supervening circumstances” that emerged after the accused was granted interim protection.
The prosecutrix, a 27-year-old advocate, alleged that the accused advocate “maintains cordial relationships with certain Judicial Officers” who attempted to influence her.
The judgment noted: “A bare perusal of the Status Report as well as the transcript of the call with one of the judicial officers prima facie indicates towards attempt on the accused’s part to influence the prosecutrix to dilute her case in exchange of a cash consideration.”
The Court found that “ex facie, specific assertions of ₹30 lakhs in cash being kept for being paid to the prosecutrix are repeatedly made during the course of the conversation.” It also noted that the same judicial officer “also offers job to the prosecutrix.”
In contrast, the Court observed that conversations with “the second judicial officer” did not appear to “reflect any explicit attempt at influencing the prosecutrix by way of monetary considerations or otherwise” but were subject to further enquiry.
The High Court concluded that these allegations “indicate a flagrant lack of respect towards the criminal machinery” (Para 38.3).
Cancellation of Bail
While the Court found no fault with the ASJ’s original order based on the facts presented at that time (Para 38), it held that the subsequent evidence of influence was decisive.
The judgment states: “…even if it is assumed that the prosecutrix made attempts to extort money, the accused cannot be absolved as a bare perusal of the transcripts… prima facie indicate that he has made an egregious affront to the principles of justice by attempting to pay the prosecutrix through a judicial officer, who will concededly have authoritative influence…” (Para 44).
The Court also noted “clear attempts made by the accused to skirt the direction of not contacting the prosecutrix… by contacting her through a friend” (Para 44).
Holding that this interference “warrants interference with the liberty granted to the accused” (Para 45), the Court set aside the bail order and directed the accused advocate to surrender before the learned Trial Court within one week.
Background of the FIR
The FIR (No. 278/2025) was registered on 25.06.2025 for offences including Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The prosecutrix alleged that the accused advocate, whom she met five years prior, “forcibly established physical relations… and thereafter apologized to her and assured to marry her stating that he was a widower” (Para 2). It was alleged he continued the relationship by “emotionally blackmailing her,” leading to a pregnancy in May 2025. The FIR also alleged a subsequent assault by the accused advocate and two co-accused persons at the Country Club on 23.06.2025.
Arguments of the Parties
The prosecutrix (petitioner) had argued that one of the judicial officers advised her “not to go for her medical examination” and “offered monetary settlement” (Para 13), while another judicial officer allegedly “coerced her to retract her allegations” (Para 15).
The accused advocate countered that the parties were in a “prolonged and consensual relationship” and the complaint was filed for “extorting money.” He submitted transcripts alleging the prosecutrix “admitted to have received a sum of ₹30 lakhs” and was “demanding a further sum of ₹20 lakhs” (Para 23). He also contended that it was the prosecutrix who “was constantly trying to connect with the concerned Judicial Officers” (Para 21).
The High Court, noting the material from both sides, observed it was “met with an uncanny conundrum where it appears that both the parties have made an absolute mockery of justice” (Para 43).
However, it was the prima facie attempt by the accused advocate to use a judicial officer to pay the prosecutrix, rather than filing a complaint, that the Court deemed an “egregious affront to the principles of justice” (Para 44).
The Court clarified that its observations “are only made for the purpose of deciding the present case” and “shall not be taken as opinion on the merits of the case or affect the trial in any manner” (Para 52).
