Case Title: Mohit Pilania v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
A single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of Delhi High Court while rejecting the bail application said that the accused cannot claim injustice on the grounds of the complainant being a relative of the judge.
The bail application was filed by one Mohit Pilania who is accused of being an accomplice of one Aarav alias Ravi Gautam, who allegedly raped and cheated a judicial officer’s sister on the false promise of marriage.
The bench said “To suggest that since the person cheated is kin of judicial officer and if bail is not granted, it would amount to taking sides in judicial system will amount to judging the judicial system with a myopic eye and suggest that a judicial system is so fragile that it would take sides and not do justice. To take a contrary view can also be seen to amount to unjustifiably suspecting a person of interference due to his occupation without any evidence and would result in doing injustice to him, in a zeal to appear just….To state that only because the brother of the victim is a judicial officer, the accused is not getting bail due to some influence without any iota of evidence in this regard is preposterous. Accepting this argument will be equivalent to accepting that a judicial officer in case of being victimized or being hurt or cheated as a family member, as in this case being the biological brother of the complainant, does not have fundamental right to get justice for himself, his family or his immediate kith and kin.”
The bench emphasized the importance of preserving the anonymity of victims and judicial officers to protect their reputations.
The Court directed the registry to ensure that future petitions and applications involving sexual offenses contain a certificate attesting that the complainant’s name or any other identifying information has not been disclosed.
The primary accused, Ravi Gautam, had befriended the complainant on a matrimonial website, and they had subsequently married. However, it emerged that Gautam was already married. The bail applicant, Mohit Pilania, was accused of being an accomplice in the case. After reviewing the evidence, the Court found that Pilania was the main accused’s teacher and had conspired with him to defraud the complainant and her family.
The Bench rejected the bail plea and instructed the registry to conceal the identity of both the victim and the judicial officer.