₹30 Lakh Is Already Kept, ₹20 Lakh More If You Settle: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail of Advocate As Judge Offer Bribe to Rape Survivor

“When liberty is used to influence the judicial process through backdoor means, it forfeits its constitutional sanctity,” In a judgment that will deeply resonate with members of the legal fraternity, the Delhi High Court on November 7, 2025, set aside the pre-arrest bail granted to an advocate accused in a case involving allegations of rape, assault, and intimidation of a fellow advocate, after the Court was presented with audio recordings suggesting that a serving judicial officer mediated a bribe offer of ₹50 lakhs—₹30 lakh already kept and ₹20 lakh promised upon compromise.

Delhi High Court not only cancelled the accused’s bail but also directed an administrative enquiry into the conduct of two judicial officers named in the recordings. The High Court noted with grave concern:

“A bare perusal of the transcript of the call with Judicial Officer–1 prima facie indicates towards attempt on part of Respondent No.2 to influence the prosecutrix to dilute her case in exchange of a cash consideration.”

The Court’s sharp intervention reinforces the ethical obligations of lawyers and the institutional responsibility of judges, especially when members of the Bar are alleged to misuse their professional influence to obstruct justice.

“₹30 Lakh Rakhe Hain, 20 Aur Milega If You Compromise”: Covert Negotiations Involving Judicial Officer Stun the Court

The case arises from FIR No. 278/2025 registered at PS Neb Sarai against a senior Delhi-based advocate, accused of establishing physical relations with a junior lawyer under the pretext of marriage, pressuring her to terminate her pregnancy, and later physically assaulting her.

After securing pre-arrest bail on July 16, 2025, the accused allegedly contacted the prosecutrix through intermediaries, including a priest and mutual acquaintances, and indirectly attempted to influence her using WhatsApp statuses and recorded calls.

But the most damning evidence came in the form of a pen drive submitted to the High Court, containing audio recordings between the prosecutrix and Judicial Officer–1, where the officer is heard stating:

“₹30 lakh is already kept. He (the accused) is ready to give ₹20 lakh more if the matter is settled. Don’t go for the medical. Adjust your Section 183 statement. A job can also be arranged.”

Justice Amit Mahajan, after listening to the audio in chambers, observed:

“This Court is appalled to take notice of the involvement of judicial officers in a case of such nature… It reflects a flagrant lack of respect towards the criminal machinery.”

The Court further remarked that such conduct, especially when facilitated through those occupying judicial positions, “strikes at the root of the rule of law.”

“Liberty Becomes a Liability When It’s Used To Subvert Justice”: High Court’s Stern View on Professional Misconduct by Advocates

While analysing the case, the Court acknowledged that the Trial Court’s original order granting bail was not perverse, and had properly considered factors such as the long-standing relationship, the delay in filing the FIR, and the absence of physical evidence.

However, the post-bail conduct of the accused turned the tide.

“One of the main tenets to cancel bail is interference with the process of law. The circumstances brought forth in the present proceedings are so overwhelming that they have shocked the conscience of this Court.”

Citing Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated the settled principle that even if a bail order was legally valid at the time of grant, “subsequent attempts to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses justify its cancellation.”

The Court minced no words in stating:

“Even if it is assumed that the prosecutrix made attempts to extort money, Respondent No.2 cannot be absolved. He chose not to file any complaint but instead tried to resolve the issue by paying ₹30 lakh and promising ₹20 lakh more through a judicial officer.”

“This Is an Absolute Mockery of Justice”: Court Rebukes Accused Advocate’s Conduct, Orders Inquiry into Judicial Officers

While the accused claimed the prosecutrix demanded ₹50 lakh to withdraw the complaint, and even submitted a call recording where she allegedly admitted to having received ₹30 lakh, the Court was not persuaded that this justified his conduct.

Justice Mahajan stated unequivocally:

“Liberty is conditional, not absolute… It cannot be permitted to be used as a shield to silence a complainant, especially by abusing legal access and institutional influence.”

The Court directed that:

• The accused surrender within one week before the Trial Court
• An administrative enquiry be initiated into the conduct of the two judicial officers named by the prosecutrix
• The material placed on record be further investigated, as the trial had not yet commenced

“Justice Cannot Be Negotiated in Cash, Even By Lawyers”: Court’s Message to the Bar and Bench

This case represents a rare and stern judicial response to the unethical misuse of professional status by a practising advocate who, instead of defending himself through legal remedies, allegedly resorted to backchannel negotiations involving members of the judiciary.

“When a legal practitioner uses his standing at the Bar to influence the prosecutrix, enlist the help of judicial officers, and offer monetary inducements, the consequences must be severe,” observed the Court.

The Court also pointedly noted that a lawyer’s profession cannot be used as a cover for misuse of liberty:

“The Trial Court had noted that Respondent No.2 was a practising advocate… But his status as a lawyer cannot insulate him when his conduct shows attempts to dismantle the very foundation of a fair trial.”

Date of Decision: November 7, 2025