Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled the bail granted to an advocate accused of sending obnoxious messages to a lady judicial officer via Facebook and her official mobile number.

The single judge bench of Justice Siddharth also directed the high court Registry to place the matter before the appropriate bench for taking suo moto cognizance of the criminal contempt committed by the accused advocate. 

"...the conduct of the opposite party no.2, namely, Abhay Pratap, was not only criminal in nature and unbecoming of an Officer of the court, but he also committed criminal contempt of court since his act amounted to interference with course of justice and obstruction in the administration of justice," the judge opined. 

The lady judicial officer who is currently a Metropolitan Magistrate had filed a bail cancellation plea before the high court seeking cancellation of bail granted to Advocate Abhay Pratap by the court of Sessions Judge, Maharajgan in a case registered under Sections 186, 228, 352, 353, 354, 354-D, 506, 509 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act.

The allegations against the advocate were that when the lady judicial officer was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate in District Court Maharajganj, Pratap, who is a practicing Advocate in the same court, started sending obnoxious messages and casting certain remarks through messages on her Facebook account.

On noticing Pratap's messages, the judicial officer blocked Pratap on Facebook, however, Pratap got her official number and started sending messages on that. In two of the messages, Pratap had written: “I love you...”, and  “Is janam me nahi to agle janam me tujhe pane ki koshish prayas karta rahunga aur ho sake to sato janam”.

Moreover, Pratap used to come to the judicial officer's court without any work and gazed at her continuously. 

The lady judicial officer then lodged an FIR at Kotwali police station in Maharajganj and also sent a representation to the high court through District Judge, Maharajganj.

Pratap got arrested, however, a few days later, Sessions Judge granted him bail.

The lady judicial officer appeared in person before the high court in the bail cancellation plea and submitted that Pratap's behaviour was undesirable and objectionable.

She asserted that owing to Pratap's such acts, she was not in a position to concentrate on her work and was apprehensive about her security.

She also argued that the reliance of Sessions Judge on the judgment of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another (2022) in the bail order was not correct since the charge-sheet was not filed against Pratap when he was granted bail.

On the other hand, before the single-judge bench, Pratap's counsel submitted that he was tendering an unconditional apology to the lady judge since he holds the highest regard for the law of the land and every member of the judicial fraternity.

The high court, however, held that the Sessions Judge had neither considered the correct, legal and factual position of the case while granting bail to Pratap nor he had applied mind to the future repercussions of granting bail to an accused involved in committing such offences against a female Presiding Officer of a Court of Law.

"The facts of this case are different from ordinary course. There is a case where a Judicial Officer/ Presiding Officer of a court of law, has been harassed on the basis of gender," Court observed. 

Therefore, while taking into account the circumstances of the case and the fact that investigation is still under progress, court allowed the bail cancellation plea.