Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses Bail to Driver Accused of Collecting Money on False Claims of Judicial Influence

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj dismissed a regular bail petition, finding the accused’s alleged role in a scheme that extracted Rs 28.5 lakhs by falsely claiming access to judges was not peripheral.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on 20 May 2026 refused regular bail to Jitender Singh alias Jeetu, one of the accused in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case registered at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal, Haryana. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, sitting singly, held that the allegations disclosed a “well-orchestrated scheme” in which unsuspecting litigants were induced to part with substantial sums on false assurances that favourable judicial orders could be procured through influence and illegal means. The court found that such conduct, if established, strikes at the foundation of public faith in the administration of justice and declined to treat the petitioner’s role as merely incidental.

The Fraud Alleged in FIR No. 169 of 2021

The FIR was registered on 3 December 2021 on a complaint by Gajraj, son of Raghunath Singh, a resident of village Bahin, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal. The complainant stated that in July 2019 he met accused Mithun and Rajender Kaushik at village Manpur. During that meeting, the complainant disclosed that his father — a former Patwari who had been placed under suspension — had lost litigation over his service benefits all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Accused Rajender Kaushik represented that his daughter, Kiran, was an advocate who had cleared judicial service examinations and had close connections with judges posted at Chandigarh and Faridabad. The accused persons claimed they could get the complainant’s case resolved through their influence with judges of the High Court and demanded a 30% commission, payable in instalments.

Rajender Kaushik took the entire case file on the same day. Shortly after, accused Mithun telephoned the complainant and put him in contact with Kiran, who told him she had spoken to a judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and that payments should be coordinated through Mithun. Mithun then visited the complainant’s house along with the petitioner, Jeetu, and both represented that they regularly managed such matters through their connections with judges and government officials.

Believing these representations, the complainant arranged vakalatnamas and legal papers from his father and paid Rs 25,000 to Mithun. Further payments followed on different occasions, and by 15 March 2020 approximately Rs 3 lakhs had been paid.

Forged Documents and Escalating Demands

The complainant alleged that Kiran subsequently informed him by telephone that the case had been won. The next day, Mithun visited his house carrying a copy of what was presented as a court order. Mithun then demanded Rs 5 lakhs, claiming the concerned judge required that amount for passing the final order and securing release of service benefits of nearly Rs 1 crore in favour of the complainant’s father. The complainant borrowed Rs 5 lakhs from a friend and paid the amount to Mithun and Jeetu in the presence of witnesses.

Demands continued on various pretexts — payments allegedly required for judges, officers, and government officials. Even during the COVID-19 lockdown from March 2020, the accused persons continued assuring the complainant that work was in progress.

On 10 September 2020, Mithun showed the complainant a cheque purportedly issued by the Revenue Department for Rs 98,25,432 but refused to hand it over, claiming one final formality remained and an additional Rs 3 lakhs was needed. The complainant arranged that amount and paid it. A photograph of the cheque was sent to him via WhatsApp. Despite repeated payments, neither the cheque nor any service benefits were ever released.

Further demands followed on the pretext of pension-related formalities. The complainant alleged that upon making inquiries from advocates practising before the High Court, he discovered that the accused persons had conspired together and prepared forged and fabricated orders and documents to cheat him. The total amount allegedly extracted from the complainant was approximately Rs 28,50,000.

Petitioner’s Case for Bail

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR named offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shasak Jain, argued that Jeetu was merely a driver employed by co-accused Mithun Kaushik and had been falsely implicated solely because of that employment. He submitted that even on the prosecution’s own case, the only role attributed to the petitioner was that he was seen accompanying the principal accused on certain occasions. No independent role was attributed to him in inducing the complainant, preparing forged documents, receiving money, or making representations.

Counsel argued that the petitioner had already undergone actual custody of nearly one year, that the case was triable by a Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that prolonged custody would serve no useful purpose.

State’s Opposition

Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Additional Advocate General for Haryana, assisted by PSI Surekha of Police Station Bahin, opposed the petition. She submitted that the allegations disclosed a grave and serious fraud in which the accused persons, acting in concert, collected large sums from the complainant on the false pretext of securing favourable judicial orders through illegal means. Such conduct, she argued, not only constitutes cheating and criminal conspiracy but tends to bring disrepute to the administration of justice and erodes public confidence in the judicial system.

State counsel submitted that specific allegations had been levelled against the petitioner regarding active collection of money from the complainant on numerous occasions and that he had repeatedly assured the complainant that favourable orders would be secured through the co-accused’s influence. His role, she argued, was not peripheral but reflected active participation in the execution of the scheme.

On the claim that the matter was triable by a Judicial Magistrate, State counsel pointed out that charges had already been framed for certain offences triable by the Court of Sessions, the case had been committed to the Sessions Court, and 11 witnesses had already been examined before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hathin.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Bhardwaj took into account the gravity and seriousness of the allegations and found the case not fit for grant of bail. The court observed that the allegations, prima facie, disclosed a well-orchestrated scheme in which unsuspecting litigants were induced to part with substantial amounts on false assurances that favourable judicial orders could be procured through influence and illegal means.

The court stated that the institution of justice derives its legitimacy and strength from the confidence reposed in it by the common citizen. It observed that any attempt to exploit innocent or gullible litigants by falsely portraying access or influence over judicial functioning for personal monetary gain not only constitutes a serious criminal act but also has the tendency to erode the sanctity, integrity, and credibility of the judicial system. The court stated that “acts of such nature cannot be viewed lightly.”

The court was unable to ignore the specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his active participation in collecting money and repeatedly assuring the complainant that favourable orders would be secured through the co-accused’s influence. It found that the magnitude of the amount extracted — approximately Rs 28 lakhs — and the nature of the accusations reflected a calculated and systematic design rather than an isolated or innocuous act.

The court also took into account the stage of proceedings. Charges had been framed, the case had been committed to the Sessions Court, and 11 witnesses had already been examined. The argument that the matter was triable only by a Judicial Magistrate was therefore found to be ill-conceived and unsustainable.

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the stage of proceedings, and the larger impact such acts have upon the credibility of the justice delivery system, the court declined to extend any indulgence in favour of the petitioner.

Order

The petition was dismissed on 20 May 2026. The court found no merit in the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 169 dated 3 December 2021, registered at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal, Haryana.