[Attempt To Rape Case] Women Employees Need Courage To Make Such Imputations: UP Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Judge

"It takes a lot of courage for a woman employee to make the imputations of such a serious nature against that very P.O. under whom she has been working," a UP Court observed as it denies anticipatory bail to the Presiding Officer of Commercial Court, Jhansi of raping a woman employee working under her.

The Sessions Judge, Jhansi Jyotsna Sharma was hearing the anticipatory bail to the judicial officer, Kautilya Gaur who has been booked under sections 376, 511, 354A, 354B, 509, 323, 504,506 IPC in a 2020 case registered by a ministerial staff working in the court of Accused-Judge.

The facts in brief 

The complainant/informant victim got lodged an FIR against the Judge with the allegations that in December 2020, he was called inside the chamber of the Presiding Officer (PO) and she found that the reader, Mrs. Shamshad Bano was exiting P.O.'s chamber saying that she (victim) got employed in the said court on compassionate ground.

On entering the chamber, the P.O. shouted at her saying as to how many spouses she had. When she informed him that on the death of her husband, late K.K. Yadav who was a Munsif Magistrate, she re-married a retired judge and the High Court had already been informed of her re-marriage.

On hearing this, it is alleged that he refused to listen to her and threatened that he would write to the High Court for estopping her pension and he used foul words, bolted the door of his chamber, and whipped out his revolver pointing towards her chest.

Allegedly, he showed his private part, snatched away from her mobile phone, and when she tried to retrieve the same, he made her fall down on the table and tried to attempt rape upon her.

It has also been alleged that somehow she managed to come out and she informed her husband and also called the police by mobile call and only when the police came, they opened the door of the office and then she could come out.

Contentions put forth

It was argued by the accused officer that at the time of the alleged incident, the reader of the commercial court, orderly, steno, and gunner were present and that at that time the hearing in an arbitration matter was going on.

He also argued that at the time of the alleged incident, besides the members of the staff, advocates were also present, and had there been truth in the allegations, the above witnesses would have supported her. He also claimed that since her application for leave was rejected, therefore, she was resorting to such tactics.

Lastly, it was contended that the complainant/informant does not know her work and that she is a thoroughly incompetent employee and previous Judges had written against her and certain adverse entries were also made in her service book. 

On the other hand, the state argued that the contents of the FIR cannot be branded as false on the face of it as it takes much courage for a woman to impute this kind of allegation against a sitting judicial officer of the District Judge rank.

It was also argued that if the informant isn't competent in her work or even if she is supposed to be prone to misbehavior this, does not give license to P.O. to misbehave in return.

It is also contended that the other staff members said to be present during the court working hours cannot be expected to give a statement against their own P.O. and in favor of a class III woman employee.

Court's observations

Taking into account the contents of the FIR, the Court observed that allegations are quite serious and highly offensive against the applicant.

"This fact cannot be ignored as argued by the D.G.C. (Crl.) that it takes a lot of courage for a woman employee to make the imputations of such a serious nature against that very P.O. under whom she has been working," the Court observed as it rejected the bail plea.

The Court also noted that no concrete facts as regard his imminent arrest or apprehension thereof had been placed before the Court and therefore, taking into account the gravity and seriousness of the charges, the Court denied him anticipatory bail.

Click Here To Read/Download Order