HC judge recuses himself from hearing bail pleas of lawyer accused of rape

Justice Amit Mahajan said he had already cancelled the advocate’s anticipatory bail on November 7 and that there was no change in circumstances warranting reconsideration

A Delhi High Court judge on Thursday said he would recuse himself and transfer to another bench the anticipatory bail and FIR-quashing petitions filed by a 51-year-old advocate, who stands accused of repeatedly raping and assaulting a 27-year-old woman lawyer, on the grounds that hearing the pleas would amount to reviewing his own earlier order.

The accused lawyer’s counsel argued that circumstances had changed since the complainant and the accused entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on November 29, in which the woman stated that she had no subsisting grievance against his client. (Representational purposes)

Justice Amit Mahajan said he had already cancelled the advocate’s anticipatory bail on November 7 and that there was no change in circumstances warranting reconsideration. “I have already made up my mind… hearing this would amount to reviewing my own order,” the judge told senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, who appeared for the accused.

Pahwa argued that circumstances had changed since the complainant and the accused entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on November 29, in which the woman stated that she had no subsisting grievance against his client. He submitted that the investigation was complete, chargesheets had been filed, and no custodial interrogation was required.

The judge, however, indicated that he would dismiss both the anticipatory bail plea and the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, but said the accused could seek a hearing before another bench. The court listed December 22 as the next date of hearing, when both the challenge to the trial court’s December 15 order and the quashing petition are scheduled to come up.

Earlier, on December 15, a trial court dismissed the advocate’s anticipatory bail plea, observing that despite alleging a grave offence such as rape, the complainant had made “highly contradictory submissions” at different stages. In a 20-page order, the court noted that while the woman sought time on November 26 to file a protest petition before the magistrate, she entered into an MoU just three days later, on November 29, and later informed the court on December 13 that she would not pursue the protest.

The trial court order followed Justice Mahajan’s November 7 ruling cancelling the advocate’s anticipatory bail and granting him a week to surrender. In the same order, the judge had also directed an administrative inquiry against two district court judges accused of pressuring the woman to withdraw her rape allegations, terming the allegations a serious affront to the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Subsequently, in a full court meeting on August 29, the Delhi High Court suspended one district judge, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him and another judge, Anil Kumar, based on the woman’s complaint.

As first reported by HT on September 2, the woman’s allegations were supported by audio recordings, prompting swift judicial intervention. Records of the full court meeting of August 28, accessed by HT, showed that the action against the judges stemmed from complaints of grave judicial misconduct made by the woman before chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya in July and later before the registrar general, following which a vigilance inquiry was ordered.

The complainant has also alleged that she was introduced to a then sitting Delhi HC judge in January 2025 through the accused’s lawyer, who promised to secure her appointment as a law researcher.