-
by Admin
18 February 2026 2:25 PM
“If the presiding officer of a criminal court is related to the accused, even remotely, recusal is not a matter of discretion, but of judicial propriety” — observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court as it took serious note of allegations that a Judicial Magistrate granted bail to her own cousin, directing a sealed inquiry into the relationship.
In a proceeding that has now taken a sharp turn towards judicial ethics, Justice Sumeet Goel ordered that the comments of Judicial Magistrate Vandana Walia be placed on record in a sealed cover, following a growing body of material suggesting that she is a cousin of accused Rishabh Walia, who was granted bail by her in FIR No. 485 dated 26.12.2023 under Sections 195A, 506, and 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala.
The petition before the High Court was filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 CrPC seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent Rishabh Walia, on grounds of judicial impropriety, conflict of interest, and abuse of process, alleging that the bail was granted by a close relative — his cousin sister.
“Judicial Officer Must Not Preside Over a Matter Involving Her Own Kin”: Bail Order Under Scanner
The main allegation raised by petitioner Akash Walia, represented by Advocate Mr. Fateh Saini, is that Ms. Vandana Walia, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Ambala, who granted regular bail to Rishabh Walia, is his cousin sister.
On February 27, 2024, the High Court initially issued notice on the bail cancellation petition, noting:
“The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked... on the grounds that Mrs. Vandana Walia is cousin sister of accused Rishab Walia... and in that eventuality, the Vacation Judge-cum-JMIC, Ms. Vandana ought not to have heard the matter being a close relative by herself.”
The matter was then taken up on multiple dates, during which affidavits and counter-affidavits were placed on record, shedding more light on the familial nexus between the Judicial Officer and the accused.
“Attendance at Bhog Ceremony, Ancestral Links, and Statements of Villagers – All Point to Familial Relationship”
A counter affidavit filed by the petitioner on record (dated 28.04.2025) brought significant facts before the Court. It alleged that:
“Vinod Walia, father of the accused Rishabh Walia, and Vandana Walia (JMIC) share a close bloodline. She took leave from the court to attend the Bhog ceremony of Anil Walia (brother of Vinod), indicating deep familial ties.”
The counter affidavit narrated that:
“Anil Walia was the real brother of Vinod Walia and was the maternal uncle's son of Shyam Walia, father of Vandana Walia.”
This, the petitioner claimed, establishes a direct cousin relationship between the Judicial Magistrate and the accused. An administrative inquiry, it was submitted, had also been referred to the District & Sessions Judge, Ambala, and several local residents of Fatehpur Pundri (Kaithal) had confirmed the familial connection in their affidavits and statements.
State Verification Confirms Distant Relation, But Not ‘Real Sibling’
A compliance report dated 19.05.2025 filed by the State of Haryana, through DSP Suresh Kumar, confirmed that:
“Mrs. Vandana Walia is the distant relative of respondent Rishabh Walia… they are not real brother and sister, but there exists a long-term familial tie through the paternal aunt of Rishabh’s father.”
The report detailed genealogical history:
“Vandana Walia’s grandmother is the aunt of Rishabh Walia’s father… though not real siblings, they are connected through extended family bonds and ancestral proximity in village Fatehpur Pundri.”
While the report attempted to distance the relationship, it nevertheless did not deny the existence of a familial bond, albeit categorizing it as a distant cousin relationship.
High Court Orders Sealed Comments from Judicial Magistrate on Allegation of Conflict
Taking serious cognizance of the claims, Justice Goel directed:
“Before proceeding further in the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to elicit comments from the concerned Judicial Officer namely Smt. Vandana, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.”
The Court entrusted the Registrar General of the High Court to obtain the comments in a sealed cover, also instructing that:
“If any inquiry has been conducted on the administrative side, the same shall be produced (in a sealed cover) before this Court.”
The matter was directed to be listed on 26.11.2025, on urgent basis, for further consideration.
Judicial Neutrality and Bail Jurisprudence at Crossroads
The present case touches upon a foundational tenet of judicial ethics: that no judge can adjudicate a matter involving a person with whom they share a relationship that could potentially give rise to bias.
While Section 439(2) CrPC empowers the High Court to cancel bail on misuse or supervening developments, this case raises a unique constitutional and procedural concern: can a judge, even if distantly related, grant relief to a relative without breaching public confidence in the justice system?
The Court appears inclined to scrutinize this question through institutional lenses, as it weighs whether the judicial officer’s participation vitiated the order.
Bail May Be Interim, But Judicial Fairness Is Non-Negotiable
The High Court’s firm move to investigate the alleged familial link between the bail-granting magistrate and the accused, is a welcome exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, reinforcing that justice must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done.
Whether the bail order survives or is quashed, will now hinge on the sealed comments of Judicial Magistrate Ms. Vandana Walia, and the findings of any administrative inquiry conducted. The outcome may set a critical precedent on recusal and judicial neutrality, especially in bail matters involving alleged family ties.
Next Date of Hearing: 26 November 2025
