Punjab and Haryana High Court seeks response from judge accused of granting bail to relative

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought response from a judicial magistrate who allegedly granted bail to her relative in a case of criminal intimidation [Akash Walia v State of Haryana].

Justice Sumeet Goel passed the order in a plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted to accused Reshab Walia by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (JMIC) Vandana in the case registered under Sections 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bench also directed the High Court’s Registrar General to inform it about any inquiry undertaken in the matter on the administrative side.

“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 Court ordered.

The petition before the Court was filed by complainant Akash Walia, who claimed that the judicial officer Vandana is the cousin sister of accused Reshab Walia. He argued that judge Vandana ought not to have heard the matter. In response, the State of Haryana told the Court that the judicial officer and the accused are distant relatives. 

“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,” the Court recorded in a recent order.

Considering the State’s reply, the Court has now sought comments from the judge and listed the matter for hearing on November 26.

In the bail order dated December 31, 2023, JMIC Vandana had noted that there were counter FIRs between the accused and complainant. In the present case, the trial judge had noted that there was allegedly only a threat for compromise in the other FIR. 

She had thus questioned how Section 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) was made out against the accused.

“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.”

Therefore, the JMIC had granted bail to the accused. The same order is now under challenge before the High Court.

Advocate Fateh Saini represents petitioner Akash Walia.

Additional Advocate General Tarun Aggarwal appeared for the State of Haryana.

Advocates Abhinav Sood and Nitesh Jhajria appeared for accused Rishab Walia.

[Read Order]