‘Mockery of the judicial system’: Delhi HC denies lawyer protection from arrest

The court noted that the settlement in the case was under a “cloud” in view of the antecedent circumstances as the case also involved judicial officers who attempted to influence the proceedings.

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim protection from arrest to a 51-year-old advocate accused of repeatedly raping and assaulting a 27-year-old woman lawyer, observing that the case had a “chequered history” and amounted to a “mockery of the judicial system.”

Delhi Police said a supplementary chargesheet was yet to be filed and they were awaiting a forensic report on evidence submitted by the complainant.

The court noted that the settlement in the case was under a “cloud” in view of the antecedent circumstances as the case also involved judicial officers who attempted to influence the proceedings.

A bench of justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani declined relief after hearing arguments from the accused’s counsel, Abhimanyu Bhandari, and the Delhi Police.

“They may be advocates, but this matter has a different flavour. It’s not that simple. Some judicial officers are involved, [who have been] suspended… The reason I say that the settlement may be under cloud is because of the antecedent circumstances. This is not a garden-variety case of allegation… The counsel threatened, judges threatened... This is absolutely a mockery of justice,” justice Bhambhani told Bhandari.

He added, “You make allegations, the other party makes allegations, and then one side approaches the judicial officer. The judicial officer is under suspension, and then you come and say everything is hunky dory? Two parties and others co-hoot trying to play games with the system… You’ve got the whole judicial system involved.”

Earlier, Bhandari had urged the court to release his client on bail, submitting that his client and the complainant had resolved the dispute and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on November 29, in which she had affirmed that she has no subsisting grievance against his client. He further submitted that the investigating officer in the case had previously submitted before the sessions court that the chargesheet was filed without arrest, and it did not require the man’s custody. He also pointed out that the complainant had previously told the sessions court she had no objection to anticipatory bail.

The Delhi Police, however, contested this, informing the high court that the investigation remained incomplete. They stated a supplementary chargesheet was yet to be filed and they were awaiting a forensic report on evidence submitted by the complainant.

Faced with these contradictory stances, the court declined to grant interim relief. “We don’t know what the truth is, and in every passing phase it is getting more and more murky… today you say the investigation is complete, but the Delhi Police says that the investigation is pending… how can I grant you interim protection?” the judge asked. The court issued notice on the anticipatory bail plea and scheduled the next hearing for February 27.

As first reported by HT on September 2, the woman’s complaint, supported by audio recordings, led to the suspension of district judge Sanjeev Kumar Singh and recommended disciplinary action against him and another judge, Anil Kumar, by a full court meeting by the high court on August 29.

The complainant alleged she was introduced to a then-sitting Delhi high court judge in January 2025 through the accused’s lawyer, who promised her a law researcher position. Earlier, on November 7, the high court had cancelled the accused’s anticipatory bail. Justice Amit Mahajan, in the November order, also mandated an administrative inquiry against two district court judges accused of pressuring the woman to withdraw her allegations, observing this reflected a “blatant disregard for the integrity of the criminal justice system.”

Then, on December 15, a trial court again dismissed the advocate’s second anticipatory bail application. In a 20-page order, it noted the victim’s “highly contradictory submissions,” pointing out that while she sought an adjournment on November 26 to file a protest petition, she entered into the MoU three days later and her lawyer informed the magistrate on December 13 that she would not file a protest petition.