Mohit Pilania vs NCT of Delhi

BAIL APPLN. 4252/2023

The accused contended that the court’s decision to reject his bail request was unfair because a member of the complainant’s family works as a judge. “A judicial officer under being a judicial officer does not waive his fundamental rights which are available to all other citizens of the country as well as his social and private rights to look after and stand by his family,” the Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted. As the complainant/victim’s biological sibling, he also has the right to support her and his family and to take legal action against anyone who harms or tarnishes the reputation of his family. Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), a bail request was made to ensure regular bail in a case involving offences under Sections 419, 420, 493, 494, 495, 376, 109, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

The case began with a complaint in which the complainant claimed to have met the primary applicant via the online marriage matching website “” After their marriage, she got a call from a Nikita-named woman who claimed to be Aarav’s wife. The complainant learned that the applicant had been married before he married her and that he had taken her gold jewellery and pledged it as collateral for a bank loan.

Following a careful review of the documentation, the Court concluded that, in contrast to the Applicant’s claims, there is clear evidence of one Mohit’s involvement. Only one member of the primary applicant’s family attended the marriage, according to the statement made under Section 164 of the CrPC and the First Information Report (FIR). and subsequent statements under Section 161 of the CrPC strengthen the allegations.

Furthermore, the Bench noted that the inquiry showed that Arav had fraudulently transferred Rs. 50,000 into the applicant’s bank account. The claims and this cash transaction suggest that Mohit and the primary applicant were involved in a plot.

The Court emphasized that the complainant’s familial relation to a judicial officer does not diminish her rights or entitlement to justice. Denying her equal opportunities based on her brother’s profession would be a miscarriage of justice. In addition, the Court emphasized that a judicial officer, solely under holding such a position, does not relinquish his inherent and fundamental rights. These rights, which are accessible to all other citizens of the country, encompass both social and private aspects, allowing the judicial officer to attend to and support his family.

In addition, the judicial officer has the right to support the victim or complainant and their family and to take necessary action against anyone who endangers them or brings shame to their family because he is their biological sibling.

In this instance, the Court observed that the judicial officer has the right to support his biological sister despite their biological relationship. Crucially, there is no evidence in the record that the judicial officer is directly participating in the proceedings or is trying to influence the legal system in favour of the complainant.

The Bench underlined that promises from friends and family are crucial in Indian arranged weddings. The record refuted the claim that the complainant’s brother was informed about the main accused’s character. The Court expressed worry about possible threats to witnesses while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations. The Court further expressed dismay at ongoing attempts to breach legal confidentiality obligations by disclosing the complainant’s and her brother’s identity.


The Delhi High Court rejected Mohit Pilania’s bail application, emphasizing judges’ entitlement to personal rights. It criticized the accused’s lawyer for revealing the victim’s identity and the judicial officer’s relationship.


The court disproved the idea that a judge’s family would be treated unfairly and affirmed the judge’s right to privacy. Rejecting the bail petition, it emphasised the gravity of the charges against Pilania and the potential impact on witnesses.

Summary of Mohit Pilania v The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr| The Accused cannot allege that he is not getting justice because the complainant relative of the judge.

Adv. Khanak Sharma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.