Delhi HC Cancels Pre-Arrest Bail of Advocate Accused of Rape, Citing Attempts to Influence Victim Through Judicial Officers [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to an advocate accused of rape, holding that his attempts to influence the prosecutrix through judicial officers and other intermediaries constituted interference with the administration of justice, warranting withdrawal of the liberty granted on bail.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan in the case of PJ v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (Bail Appln. 2818/2025), decided on November 7, 2025.

The case arose out of an FIR registered at Police Station Neb Sarai for offences under Sections 376, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecutrix, a practising advocate aged about 27 years, alleged that she came in contact with Respondent No. 2, also an advocate aged about 51 years, about five years ago through her friend. The prosecutrix alleged that Respondent No. 2 forcibly established physical relations with her and assured to marry her, stating that he was a widower. She alleged that he continued to establish physical relations by emotionally blackmailing her and that she became pregnant. It is alleged that later, Respondent No. 2 took her to Jupiter Hospital for termination of pregnancy, following which a quarrel ensued, and she was allegedly assaulted at Country Club by Respondent No. 2 and co-accused persons.

Respondent No. 2 filed an application seeking pre-arrest bail. He was granted interim protection on the condition that he would join the investigation and not contact witnesses or the victim. By order dated July 16, 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail observing that the prosecutrix and Respondent No. 2 had been in a relationship for around five years, the prosecutrix used to visit his house and worked with him as an intern, and it appeared improbable that she was unaware of his marital status. Considering that Respondent No. 2 is a practising advocate and had cooperated in the investigation, pre-arrest bail was granted.

The prosecutrix challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, contending that unwarranted regard was given to the profession of Respondent No. 2. The prosecutrix submitted that she was contacted by Judicial Officer-1 after the registration of FIR, who advised her not to go for a medical examination. She alleged that Judicial Officer-1 had “offered a monetary settlement to the prosecutrix to induce her to compromise the matter with Respondent No. 2 and had also informed her that he had kept a sum of ₹30 lakhs to be paid to the prosecutrix.” The prosecutrix alleged that Judicial Officer-1 coerced her to dilute the case in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and that his personal staff kept calling her and pressurised her not to oppose the pre-arrest bail application.

The prosecutrix further submitted that Judicial Officer-2 also called her and coerced her to retract her allegations and falsely state that the FIR was lodged by mistake. She alleged that she continuously received calls from Respondent No. 2 through the phone of his friend Khalil, and that during the pendency of the case, Respondent No. 2 uploaded certain WhatsApp status updates visible only to her, thereby threatening and abusing her.

The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the impugned order was well reasoned and warranted no interference. He contended that the allegations were vague and generic in nature and that the FIR was lodged with unexplained delay. He submitted that the parties were involved in a prolonged and consensual relationship and that the prosecutrix failed to disclose this fact. He contended that the prosecutrix fervently attempted to contact the judicial officers and made more than 27 calls between the registration of the FIR and the recording of her statement. He submitted that the transcript of conversations bolstered the case that “the prosecutrix had demanded a sum of ₹50 lakhs and, as per her conversation with Abhay Pratap Singh, the prosecutrix herself admitted to having received a sum of ₹30 lakhs and that the complaint was filed since she was demanding a further sum of ₹20 lakhs.” He further submitted that cancellation of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring very cogent and overwhelming material of misuse of liberty, which was lacking.

The Court referred to Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, where the Supreme Court observed that “where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside.” The Court further referred to Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., noting the grounds for cancellation of bail, including interference with the administration of justice and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The Court examined the impugned order and observed that “a bare perusal of the same reflects that the learned Trial Court has duly applied its mind and aptly appreciated the facts of the case as well as the law in relation to rape on the pretext of false promise of marriage.” The Court noted that the learned Trial Court considered the prolonged relationship for five years and bank account statements showing regular transfers of money to the prosecutrix. The Court held that “it does not appear that the learned Trial Court arbitrarily exercised its discretion and granted bail to Respondent No. 2 in the present case.”

However, the Court noted that the prosecutrix made overarching allegations regarding attempts to influence her. The Court observed that “the most glaring allegation of all is in regard to two judicial officers having attempted to influence the prosecutrix to dilute the case at the behest of Respondent No. 2.” The Court examined the allegations and observed that “a bare perusal of the Status Report as well as the transcript of the call with Judicial Officer-1 prima facie indicates an attempt on the part of Respondent No. 2 to influence the prosecutrix to dilute her case in exchange for a cash consideration.” The Court noted that “specific assertions of ₹30 lakhs in cash being kept for being paid to the prosecutrix are repeatedly made during the course of the conversation. The Judicial Officer-1 also offers a job to the prosecutrix.”

The Court held that “as noted above, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order; however, this Court cannot be a mute spectator to the evidence in the nature of audio recordings which indicate that a sum of ₹30 lakhs was attempted to be paid to the prosecutrix.”

The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 placed reliance on transcripts to contend that the prosecutrix gave the complaint to extort money and had acknowledged receiving ₹30 lakhs while demanding ₹20 lakhs more. The Court observed that “although the allegations in relation to extortion require further investigation, it cannot be denied that the material relied upon by Respondent No. 2 prima facie indicates that the prosecutrix received some amount and made certain demands as well.”

The Court remarked that “it was thus faced with an uncanny conundrum where it appears that both the parties have made an absolute mockery of justice.” However, the Court observed that “insofar as the question of cancellation of bail is concerned, even if it is assumed that the prosecutrix made attempts to extort money, Respondent No. 2 cannot be absolved, as a bare perusal of the transcripts as well as Status Reports prima facie indicates 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, instead of making a complaint in this regard.”

The Court held that “the circumstances brought forth in the present proceedings are so overwhelming that they have shocked the conscience of this Court, and the same reflect that there is apparent interference with the administration of justice, which warrants interference with the liberty granted to Respondent No. 2.”

The Court referred to Phireram v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court emphasised that “if the accused tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, or attempts to subvert the trial, the indulgence of bail is to be withdrawn. It is a recognition that liberty is conditional, not absolute, and subject always to the larger interest of ensuring a fair trial.”

The Court observed that “considering the influential status of Respondent No. 2 as well as his conduct and the serious issues raised in the present case in regard to attempts being made by several persons to influence the prosecutrix at the behest of Respondent No. 2, there is a grave possibility of Respondent No. 2 further attempting to influence witnesses or tampering with evidence if he is allowed to go scot-free.”

The Court held that “the present is a fit case to set aside the impugned order and cancel the pre-arrest bail granted to Respondent No. 2.” However, considering that Respondent No. 2 has remained on bail for over three months, the Court granted one week to surrender before the learned Trial Court. The Court further directed that “an administrative enquiry into the conduct of the concerned judicial officers, who were in contact with the prosecutrix, is also warranted, and it is directed that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken in this regard.”

Case Title: PJ v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case No.: Bail Appln. 2818/2025

Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan

Date of Judgment: November 7, 2025

For Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Jha and Mr. Bhagwan Jha, Advocates

For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State; Mr. Vikas Pahwa and Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocates with Ms. Aarushi Singh, Ms. Natasha Garg, Ms. Riya Parihar, Mr. Anubhav Dubey, Mr. Jasmeet S. Chadha, Mr. Thakur Ankit Singh and Ms. Somya Dhawan, Advocates for R2.

[Read Judgment]