High Court Probes Alleged Kinship Between Judge and Accused in Bail Cancellation Plea

CHANDIGARH – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has initiated a formal inquiry into an alleged conflict of interest involving a Judicial Magistrate who granted bail to an accused, after the petitioner claimed the two are closely related. The court has directed the Registrar General to seek comments in a sealed cover from the concerned judicial officer to ascertain the nature of her relationship with the accused.

The single-judge bench of Mr. Fateh Saini, J is presiding over a petition filed by Akash Walia seeking the cancellation of regular bail granted to Reshab Walia under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The Core of the Controversy

The case stems from FIR No. 485, registered on December 26, 2023, under Sections 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, with Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) added later.

The petitioner, Akash Walia, has challenged the bail granted to the accused, Reshab Walia, on the grounds of judicial impropriety. The central allegation is that the bail was granted by Ms. Vandana, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Ambala , who is allegedly the cousin sister of the accused.

Arguments and Preliminary Findings

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the JMIC should have recused herself from hearing the bail application due to her close familial ties with the accused. The petitioner submitted an affidavit detailing the relationship, stating that the accused's father (Vinod Walia) and the judge's father (Shyam Walia) are cousins. It was further alleged that Ms. Vandana had attended a family ceremony at their native village, reinforcing the claim of a close relationship.

> "The Court is presently seized of the issue regarding whether Mrs. Vandana Walia, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, is the cousin sister of the accused-respondent No. 2, Rishab Walia. This matter must be adjudicated as a preliminary question in order to arrive at a reasoned and lawful conclusion in the present petition," the High Court noted in its order.

In response to the court's direction, the State of Haryana filed a compliance report. The investigation, based on witness statements, concluded that while the judge and the accused are not "real brothers and sisters," they are "distant relatives (cousins)." The report detailed their family lineage, confirming a long-term familial connection where the judge's grandmother is the aunt of the accused's father.

Court Seeks Direct Explanation from Judicial Officer

Finding the matter requires further clarification, the High Court has taken a significant step to ensure judicial integrity. Justice Saini's order stated:

> "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..."

The Court also directed that if any administrative inquiry has already been conducted into the matter, its report should also be produced in a sealed cover for perusal.

Implications and Next Steps

The High Court's decision to directly seek comments from the judicial officer underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of impartiality and transparency. The outcome of this preliminary inquiry will be crucial in determining the fate of the bail cancellation petition. If a conflict of interest is established, it could lead to the cancellation of the bail granted to Reshab Walia and raise serious questions about judicial conduct.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 26, 2025, and has been marked for the "urgent cause list."