The court said that such attempts are "rampant" and give an impression that justice can be bought and that prosecutors and judges can be sold. The same should be “nipped in the bud”, it added.
The Bombay High Court recently observed it is a common practice that parties to a case indulge in transactions under the “guise of settlement” and such tendency of guaranteeing the decision in favour of one party is nothing but maligning the judges.
The court said that such attempts are “rampant” and give an impression that justice can be bought and that prosecutors and judges can be sold. The same should be “nipped in the bud”, it added.
The HC rejected bail to a man booked by Palghar police last year for cheating a woman of nearly Rs 16.5 lakh with a promise of facilitating the release on bail of her 20-year-old son, booked under Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Bharati H Dangre was hearing the bail plea filed by Minol Anil Hudda, who was arrested on October 9, last year. A chargesheet has also been filed against him.
Advocates A I Mookutiar, Adnan A Mookutiar and Sanjay Bhatia, appearing for Hudda, sought his release on bail as chargesheet has been filed in the case and further custodial interrogation was not necessary.
The complaint was filed by a resident of Vasai, who alleged that as her 20-year-old son was in love with a minor girl, he was booked under the POCSO Act on January 21, last year. As per the complaint, after the son was arrested, the mother was introduced to Hudda by his common friends. Hudda gave an impression that his father is a well-known lawyer and will guarantee that bail is secured in 15 days. The woman then paid Hudda Rs 16.5 lakh.
However, her son was not granted bail and when she inquired with Hudda, he gave an evasive response. She then lodged a police complaint.
The HC observed, “Though the offence prima facie is of cheating, it seems that cheating is for the purpose of manipulation of the proceedings in the court… It is not uncommon feature that when the matter is pending before the particular court, the parties indulge into transaction under the guise of ‘settlement’ and sometimes it so happens, even without the knowledge of counsel on record, who may prefer to argue the case on its merit.”
Justice Dangre remarked, “This tendency of guaranteeing the decision to come in favour of one party or the other, amounts to maligning a particular Judge and at large, the institution itself by giving an impression that justice can be bought and the prosecutors and judges can be sold. These vexatious attempts are rampant and this has to be nipped in the bud.”
Source: Read Full Article