Judicial Officers Dealing With Criminal Cases Face Risks, Should Have Personal Security Officers: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court while granting bail in a case involving an alleged attack on a serving Judicial Magistrate, has flagged the urgent need to take a fresh look at the personal security of judicial officers of all grades, observing that judicial work, particularly on the criminal side, often offends vested interests and exposes judges to tangible risks, making continuous personal security a matter of institutional necessity. Justice Pranjal Das, pressing over the case, allowed the bail application, while observing, “Before parting, this Court is inclined to make the following observations : this incident is also a reminder regarding the need for taking a fresh look at the security for Judicial Officers of all grades and not just Senior Judicial Officers. Judicial Officers in the course of their work, especially those working on the criminal side, could offend vested interests and invite risks. Therefore, their personal security at all times needs to be taken care of well.” “In my considered opinion, Judicial Officers of all grades, especially those working on the criminal side, should have a personal security officer. The unfortunate incident which is the subject matter of the present bail adjudication perhaps would not have taken place if the learned judicial officer/victim had a personal security officer with him at that time. It would be perhaps desirable and prudent for the concerned authorities of the State Government to review the personal security arrangements of all Judicial Officers,” Justice Das further observed. The above observations were made while deciding a Bail Application filed by two individuals viz., Hafijur Rahman and Atowar Rahman under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a case registered under Sections 281/324(4)/132/109/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the factual matrix recorded by the Court, the informant in the case was a Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilasipara, who alleged that on 01.12.2025, while travelling to his office, his car was hit by a vehicle. It was alleged that the occupants of the car abused him with obscene language, threatened him, chased him when he tried to leave the spot, and attempted to assault him with a wooden stick. It was further alleged that even after knowing that he was a judge, the accused continued to abuse and attempt to hit him, and that court staff later intervened and rescued him. During the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, submitting that the informant had supported the allegations in his statement, that other witnesses had implicated the accused, and that the case involved an attempted offence against a judicial officer. While considering the bail plea, the Court underscored that the right to safety and security is not dependent on professional status, and that courts remain objective even when the victim belongs to the judicial fraternity. In this context, the Court observed, “Needlessly to say, that not just victim or the informant belonging to the Judicial fraternity, every citizen is entitled to his right to public safety and security, irrespective of what he is in life. That right accrues as the member of the society and as a citizen and the right of public safety and security accrues even to foreigners visiting our county.”“It is never the case that even if victim of a criminal case is a member of Judicial fraternity, the courts while adjudicating the matter, will not be able to be dispassionately objective,” the Court added. Even though describing the alleged conduct of the accused as serious, the Court granted bail, observing, “Though, the alleged conduct of the petitioners is despicable and condemnable – nevertheless, considering the progress of investigation and length of detention so far, I am of the considered view that they can be released on bail at this stage, subject to stringent conditions.” Accordingly, the bail application was allowed and disposed of. Case No.: Bail Appln./4019/2025Case Title: Hafijur Rahman & Anr. v. State of AssamClick here to read the judgment Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 80

Judicial Officers Dealing With Criminal Cases Face Risks, Should Have Personal Security Officers: Gauhati High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

Judicial Officers Dealing With Criminal Cases Face Risks, Should Have Personal Security Officers: Gauhati High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers