Claiming Influence Over Judges To Extract Money Erodes Public Faith In Justice System: P&H High Court Denies Bail
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to a man accused of participating in a fraud scheme wherein large sums of money were allegedly extracted from a litigant on the false pretext of securing favourable court orders through influence with High Court judges.Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "This Court is also unable to ignore the specific allegations attributed to...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused regular bail to a man accused of participating in a fraud scheme wherein large sums of money were allegedly extracted from a litigant on the false pretext of securing favourable court orders through influence with High Court judges.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "This Court is also unable to ignore the specific allegations attributed to the petitioner regarding his active participation in collecting money and also of repeatedly assuring the complainant that favourable orders would be secured, through the influence, by the co-accused persons. The magnitude of the amount extracted from the complainant and the nature of the accusations levelled reflect a calculated and systematic design rather than an isolated or innocuous act."
The Court added that, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the stage of the proceedings and the larger impact such acts have upon the purity and credibility of the justice delivery system, this Court is not inclined to extend any indulgence in favour of the petitioner.
The Court dismissed the plea filed by Jitender Singh alias Jeetu, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 169 dated December 3, 2021, registered at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
As per the prosecution, the complainant was induced by the accused persons into believing that they had connections with judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and could secure favourable orders in a pending service matter concerning his father.
It was alleged that the accused demanded money in instalments and, over time, extracted approximately ₹28.5 lakh from the complainant. The accused allegedly showed forged court orders and even a fabricated cheque of nearly ₹98 lakh purportedly issued by the Revenue Department to further the deception.
The complainant later discovered that the documents were forged and that no such judicial orders had been passed, prompting registration of the FIR.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was merely employed as a driver by the main accused and had been falsely implicated due to his association. It was contended that no specific role was attributed to him in the alleged cheating, forgery or inducement, and that he had already undergone nearly one year in custody.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the allegations disclose a serious and organised fraud wherein the accused, acting in conspiracy, collected large sums by falsely projecting influence over judicial officers. It was argued that the petitioner actively participated in collecting money and reassuring the complainant about securing favourable orders.
The Court noted that the allegations prima facie reveal a “well-orchestrated scheme” aimed at exploiting unsuspecting litigants by falsely claiming access to the judicial system for monetary gain.
Emphasising the gravity of the offence, the Court observed that such acts strike at the very foundation of public confidence in the administration of justice.
“The institution of justice derives its legitimacy from public confidence. Any attempt to exploit litigants by portraying false influence over judicial functioning not only constitutes a serious offence but also erodes the credibility of the system,” the Court observed.
The Court further took note of the specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his role in collecting money and assuring the complainant of favourable outcomes.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the magnitude of the fraud, and the stage of the proceedings, the Court held that no case for grant of bail was made out.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Mr. Shasak Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG, Haryana, assisted by PSI Surekha, P.S. Bahin.
Title: JITENDER SINGH ALIAS JEETU v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION BAHIN, DISTRICT PALWAL, HARYANA