Delhi High Court Cancels Pre-Arrest Bail of Accused Advocate for Attempting to Influence Witness via Judicial Officers under BNSS

The Delhi High Court has delivered a scathing indictment of attempts to subvert the criminal justice process, cancelling the pre-arrest bail of a practicing advocate accused of sexual assault. In a significant judgment, the Court held that the Respondent’s efforts to influence the prosecutrix—including the alleged involvement of two judicial officers—constituted a grave interference with the administration of justice.

A Relationship Turned Fractious

The case centers on a five-year relationship between the petitioner (the prosecutrix) and the respondent, both of whom are advocates. The FIR, registered at Police Station Neb Sarai, alleges that the respondent committed sexual assault under the pretext of marriage, eventually leading to a pregnancy and subsequent termination. The relationship soured in June 2025, culminating in an altercation at a local club where the prosecutrix alleges she was physically assaulted by the respondent and two co-accused, Suhani Dahiya and Narain.

While the trial court initially granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent, citing the prolonged consensual nature of their relationship and the timing of the complaint, the matter reached the High Court following allegations of persistent witness intimidation.

The Allegation of Judicial Interference

The legal proceedings took an alarming turn as the prosecutrix presented audio recordings and transcripts, claiming that in addition to the respondent’s direct threats, he had mobilized influential figures to pressure her. Most notably, she alleged that two judicial officers—with whom she had previously interned—contacted her to induce a compromise.

Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the case, expressed deep concern upon reviewing the evidence. "This Court cannot be a mute spectator to the evidence in the nature of audio recordings which indicate that a sum of ₹30 lakhs were attempted to be paid to the prosecutrix," he observed. The Court noted that the transcript concerning one of the judicial officers contained specific assertions regarding monetary settlement and attempts to induce the prosecutrix into diluting her testimony recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Legal Analysis: Liberty vs. Fair Trial

The respondent’s senior counsel argued that the FIR was a tool for extortion, pointing to the prosecutrix’s frequent contact with the judicial officers as evidence of her own attempts to leverage the situation. They contended that no supervening circumstances—a prerequisite for bail cancellation—had been convincingly demonstrated.

However, the High Court distinguished between the initial merits of the bail order and the subsequent conduct of the accused. Invoking precedents like Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana and Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar , the Court reiterated that bail is not an absolute right but a conditional liberty.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining a clean trial process:

• "There appears to be some merit in the material placed on record by both sides. This Court is thus met with an uncanny conundrum where it appears that both the parties have made an absolute mockery of justice."
• "Respondent No.2 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."
• "Liberty of bail ought to be withdrawn from the accused in event of attempts being made to subvert the trial or sway the witnesses."

The Verdict and Its Implications

Concluding that the respondent’s conduct struck at the "root of the rule of law," Justice Mahajan ordered the cancellation of the pre-arrest bail. The respondent has been granted one week to surrender before the trial court. Furthermore, the High Court has directed that an administrative inquiry be conducted into the conduct of the judicial officers named in the proceedings.

This ruling serves as a warning that any attempt, however subtle or powerful, to influence witnesses will not be tolerated, signaling that the High Court remains a strict guardian of a fair and untainted trial process.