Rajasthan High Court slams judge over ‘blatant discrepancies’ in POCSO bail case, orders inquiry

Justice Farjand Ali said that the conduct of a judicial officer and the quality of his judicial work are expected to be of the highest order. (Image is enhanced using AI)

“Upon a careful and anxious perusal of the material placed on record, this court finds certain blatant discrepancies and procedural aberrations on the part of the Presiding Judge, which prima facie create a cloud of doubt over the sanctity of the proceedings,” the court said in its February 17 order. 

Observation: Judicial officer’s conduct, doubt over authenticity

• In criminal jurisprudence, the cardinal principle is that an accused cannot be convicted based on doubt; the prosecution must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• However, in the present case, the doubt is not in the prosecution’s case alone but appears to be stemming from the manner in which certain proceedings were conducted.
• Denial of liberty when there is a clear statutory mandate is contrary not only to the letter of the law but also to its humane spirit.

• The conduct of a judicial officer and the quality of his judicial work are expected to be of the highest order, indulged with purity, ethics, and of sterling worth. 
• A judicial officer, while looking into a bail plea, is expected to act with detachment, sobriety, and complete fidelity to the record. 
• Over-enthusiasm on the part of a magistrate, whether in withholding material aspects of the record or in offering explanations inconsistent with chronology, is neither appreciable nor consistent with the high standards expected of the judicial office. 
• If an error has occurred, the dignified course is to acknowledge and correct it in accordance with the law.
• The judicial function demands calm application of mind, not defensive justification; transparency, not concealment; and candour, not contradiction. 
• If circumstances give rise to a reasonable doubt touching upon such standards, whether it is in terms of conduct or in the discharge of judicial functions, it becomes important that there should be a fair and impartial enquiry. 
• Public confidence in the administration of justice is not sustained merely by pronouncements of law, but by the unimpeachable conduct of those who dispense it.

‘Present case, ordersheet, discrepancies’

• The conduct of the judicial officer concerned and the proceedings in the present case prima facie give rise to grave and disturbing doubts regarding the authenticity of the record and the manner in which the proceedings have been sought to be projected.
• The subsequent preparation of ordersheets, which appear to have been brought into existence after the filing of the bail plea by the juvenile.
• The sequence of events, along with circumstances, gives rise to a serious apprehension that the proceedings in the present case have been recorded to defeat the statutory right of the petitioner and to provide a justification for the action of the concerned judicial officer.
• There is a serious and prima facie doubt concerning the very existence and authenticity of the facts as portrayed in the ordersheet of this case. 

• The act of deliberately and wilfully preparing false documents, if established upon due examination, would be beyond the domain of judicial error and may invite deeper institutional scrutiny. 
• The careful and conscious consideration of the evidence placed on record suggests a closer and more comprehensive examination of the present case. 
• The sanctity of judicial proceedings rests upon the unimpeachable accuracy of the order sheet and the accurate recording of events. 
• The sanctity of the institution cannot suggest a sense of compromise, and any issue raised in concern should be dealt with in accordance with the law. 
• Any deviation, particularly concerning the liberty of a citizen, has impacts that are far beyond the present case and impact public confidence in the administration of justice. 
• The continued detention of the juvenile despite accrual of the statutory right violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• The circumstances and the process followed in the present case prima facie raise serious and anxious concerns regarding the integrity, purity and authenticity of the judicial record.
• The revision petition is allowed, and the previous order rejecting the bail of the juvenil are quashed and set aside. 
• The juvenile is ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the said board.
• The registry is directed to send the order for the perusal of the chief justice for their consideration to take further action, which is required to preserve the purity of the judicial process and avoid such irregularities in future. 

Case: Rejection of bail plea

• A FIR  was lodged alleging that the petitioner, along with a co-accued allegedly gang raped a child in conflict with the law and made extended threats of dire consequences.
• The child in conflict with the law was found to be two-months pregnant upon medical examination. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended in August 2025 and has since been confined in the child welfare centre.
• The petitioner’s application seeking bail, upon expiry of 90 days of custody, was rejected by the juvenile justice board and later in appeal by the Special Court.
• Aggrieved by the appeal order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition, where a serious doubt regarding the prosecution’s conduct was noted by the court.