# Isha Agrawal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 510
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-20
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No. 36 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddharth
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/isha-agrawal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49868
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 186, 228, 352,
353, 354, 354-D, 506& 509 - Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 -
applicant who was posted as Civil Judge,
Junior Division, one practicing advocate
started sending obnoxious message to her
CUG number and facebook and gazed her
continuously in the court room-this is a
case
where
judicial
officer/Presiding
officer of a court of law has been harassed
on the basis of gender-recovery of mobile
phone of the opposite party shows that he
used the said mobile phone in the
commission of the alleged crime against
the applicant-The session court granted
bail to the opposite party but the Session
Judge did not consider the impact of the
conduct attributed to opposite party that
it will have deleterious effect on the
functioning of the judicial system at the
grass root level, his conduct was not only
criminal in nature but he also committed
criminal contempt of court since his act
amounted to interference with course of
justice
and
obstruction
in
the
administration
of
justice-Hence,
bail
granted by the court below to opposite
party is cancelled.(Para 1 to 10)

The
bail
cancellation
application
is
allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I & anr.,SLP(Crl.)
No 5191 of 2021

## Text

510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh,
Advocate assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar
Singh and Sujeet Kumar, learned counsels
for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
records.

2. Order in Chamber.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 510
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 36 of 2023

Isha Agrawal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Veerendra Singh, Sri Prateek Kumar
Srivastava,
Sri
V.P.
Srivastava
(Sr.
Advocate), Smt. Isha Agrawal (In Person)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Manu Sharma, Sri Dinesh Kumar
Pandey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 186, 228, 352,
353, 354, 354-D, 506& 509 - Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 -
applicant who was posted as Civil Judge,
Junior Division, one practicing advocate
started sending obnoxious message to her
CUG number and facebook and gazed her
continuously in the court room-this is a
case
where
judicial
officer/Presiding
officer of a court of law has been harassed
on the basis of gender-recovery of mobile
phone of the opposite party shows that he
used the said mobile phone in the
commission of the alleged crime against
the applicant-The session court granted
bail to the opposite party but the Session
Judge did not consider the impact of the
conduct attributed to opposite party that
it will have deleterious effect on the
functioning of the judicial system at the
grass root level, his conduct was not only
criminal in nature but he also committed
criminal contempt of court since his act
amounted to interference with course of
justice
and
obstruction
in
the
administration
of
justice-Hence,
bail
granted by the court below to opposite
party is cancelled.(Para 1 to 10)

The
bail
cancellation
application
is
allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I & anr.,SLP(Crl.)
No 5191 of 2021
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1. Heard Smt. Isha Agrawal, applicant
in person; Sri Manu Sharma, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2; learned
AGA for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

2. This bail cancellation application
has been filed by the applicant praying for
cancellation of bail granted to the accusedopposite party no.2, Abhay Pratap, in Case
Crime No. 577 of 2022, under Sections
186, 228, 352, 353, 354, 354-D, 506, 509
IPC and Section 67 I.T Act, Police Station
Kotwali, District- Maharajganj by the court
of Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, in Bail
Application No.1927 of 2022, Abhay
Pratap Vs. State of U.P. on 17.12.2022
wrongly relying upon the judgement of
Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar
Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in
3 All. Isha Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
511
S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement
dated 11.7.2022.

3. The applicant is posted as
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar at
present. At the time of the incident in
question, she was posted as Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate in
District Court Maharajganj. While she was
performing her judicial duty, the opposite
party no.2, Abhay Pratap, who is also a
practicing Advocate in the same court,
started sending obnoxious messages and
casting certain remarks through messages
on facebook account of the applicant. On
noticing the messages of opposite party
no.2, the applicant blocked the opposite
party
no.2
from
sending
messages.
Thereafter opposite party no.2 got the
official mobile number of the applicant and
started sending messages on the same. He
used to come to her court without any work
and gazed her continuously. When the limit
to tolerance was crossed by the opposite
party no.2, applicant lodged the FIR against
him
at
the
police
station
Kotwali
Maharajganj, on 11.11.2022 and also sent a
representation to this Court through District
Judge,
Maharajganj,
on
11.11.2022.
Opposite party no.2 was never connected to
the applicant on facebook or through any
media platform nor his friend request was
ever accepted by the applicant. Opposite
party no.2 started sending messages to the
applicant w.e.f. 29.9.2021 and thereafter he
sent various messages to her, which were
never
replied
by
the
applicant.
On
17.7.2022 at about 1:58 a.m. he sent
message, "I love you Isha", then again he
sent "Is janam me nahi to agle janam me
tujhe pane ki koshish prayas karta rahunga
aur ho sake to sato janam". Being fed up
with the conduct of the opposite party no.2,
applicant blocked the opposite party no.2
on facebook account on 17.7.2022. On her
CUG mobile number, he sent the message
on 8.11.2022 at 4:31 a.m., "Good Morning"
and then "I love you Baby". The opposite
party no.2 was arrested on 23.11.2022 and
the learned Sessions Judge granted him bail
on 17.12.2022 relying upon the case
Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra).

4. The applicant has appeared in
person in Court and submitted that she is a
Judicial Officer and was posted as Civil
Judge (Junior Division), in District Court,
Maharajganj, when the opposite party no.2
indulged
in
the
undesirable
and
objectionable behaviour against her. She
was not in a position to concentrate on her
work and was apprehensive towards her
security. She was distracted from discharge
of her judicial duties freely and was in
constant fear of maligning of her reputation
by the opposite party no.2. Her marriage
was settled and these messages could have
destroyed her marital life in future and may
have affected her prospective marital life.
The opposite party no.2 is setting up
dangerous trend and should be dealt with
severely and bail granted to him should be
cancelled. She has further submitted that
the reliance of learned Sessions Judge on
the judgment of Satendra Kumar Antil
(supra) in the bail order is not correct since
the charge-sheet was not filed against the
opposite party no.2, when he was granted
bail on 17.12.2022. Learned Sessions Judge
has stated that charge-sheet against the
opposite party no.2 is ready. It was not
filed till then. All the offences against the
opposite party no.2 are not bailable in
nature. She has submitted that the findings
of the learned Sessions Judge that the
charge-sheet against the opposite party no.2
is ready is incorrect. By means of rejoinder
affidavit dated 15.2.2023 applicant has
brought on record the questionnaire issued
by the court of Judicial Magistrate,
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maharajganj, which shows that chargesheet was not filed in the Case Crime
No.577 of 2022 till 17.12.2022 nor
cognizance was taken thereon till that date.
She has submitted that the benefit of the
judgment of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra)
of the Apex Court has wrongly been
extended to the applicant since he was
arrested prior to the submission of the
charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 has submitted that opposite party no.2
is seeking unconditional apology from the
applicant since he has highest regard for the
law of the land and every member of the
judicial fraternity. He has stated that he
may be pardoned for any act which has hurt
the position, respect, feelings or emotions
of the applicant. He has undertaken not to
repeat the misdeeds committed by him
earlier. He has further submitted that all the
offences alleged are punishable upto seven
years and he has not violated any condition
of bail granted to him.

6. Learned AGA has submitted that
from the mobile phone of the opposite
party no.2 recovered by the Investigating
Officer, it was found that the aforesaid
phone was used in the commission of the
alleged crime against the applicant by the
opposite party no.2.

7. After hearing the rival contentions,
this Court finds that the learned Sessions
Judge has neither considered the correct,
legal and factual position of the case while
granting bail to the opposite party no.2 nor
has applied mind to the future repercussions
of granting bail to an accused involved in
committing such offences against a female
Presiding Officer of a Court of Law. of It is
clear from the record that the charge-sheet
was not submitted against the opposite party
no.2, when he was granted bail by the learned
Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, relying upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Satendra
Kumar
Antil
(supra).
The
investigation was in progress when the
opposite party no.2 was put behind bars on
23.11.2022 and sent to jail. It may be true that
all the offence against opposite party no.2 are
punishable with terms of imprisonment
below 7 years, but all offences are not
bailable. At least two of the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 353 and 354 IPC
are non bailable. It is not a case where bail
should have been granted on a matter of right.
Normally lenient view in matters of bail
pending trial are taken where offences are
punishable with terms below 7 years. The
facts of this case are different from ordinary
course. There is a case where a Judicial
Officer/ Presiding Officer of a court of law,
has been harassed on the basis of gender.
Onerous conduct on the part of opposite party
no.2, who is no other than very responsible
officer of the court, was expected. The impact
of the conduct attributed to opposite party
no.2 is such that it will have deleterious effect
on the functioning of the judicial system at
the grass root of level. It ought to have
considered by the Sessions Judge in that
context. This has not been done. This Court is
of
the
view
that
given
aforesaid
circumstances and the fact that Investigation
was under progress, grant of bail to opposite
party no.2 cannot be countenanced. Hence
bail granted by the court below to opposite
party no.2 is hereby cancelled. The opposite
party no.2 is directed to surrender forthwith
before the court concerned.

8. The trial court is directed to
conclude the trial against opposite party
no.2, within six months.

9. Before parting with this case, this
Court finds that the conduct of the opposite
3 All. Srijan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
513
party no.2, namely, Abhay Pratap, was not
only criminal in nature and unbecoming of
an Officer of the court, but he also
committed criminal contempt of court since
his act amounted to interference with
course of justice and obstruction in the
administration of justice.

10. "Criminal contempt" means the
publication (whether by words, spoken or
written or by signs, or by visible representation,
or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which: 1. scandalises or
tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower
the authority of, any court, or 2. prejudices, or
interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or 3.
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs
or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice
in any other manner. Section 2(c) of the Act
emphasizes to the interference with the courts
of justice or obstruction of the administration of
justice or scandalizing or lowering the authority
of the court. Section 10 deals with power of
High Court to punish contempts of subordinate
courts. Section 12 deals with the punishment for
the contempt of court. Section 14(2) permits a
person charged with the contempt to have
charge against him tried by some Judge other
than the judge or judges in whose presence or
hearing the offence is alleged to have been
committed and the court is of opinion that it is
practicable to do so. Section 15 of the Act
empowers the court to take suo moto action for
cognizance of Criminal Contempt.

11. Conduct of opposite party no.2
against the applicant amounted to creation of
fear in the minds of the female Presiding
Officers of District Court faced with the acts of
sexual harassment. No Presiding Officer of a
court can be expected to discharge her official
duties of administration of justice freely and
fairly with a balanced and composed state of
mind, if such acts or the mere apprehension
thereof are there. The apprehension of
harassment through spoken words and written
words and stalking in court will always loom
large over her psyche. In a situation where
Presiding Officer of the court is herself not
secure, it cannot be expected that she would be
able to protect the litigants, who appear before
her for protection of their modesty from
unwarranted incursions and outrage by
accused, like opposite party no.2. This Court
has come across another such case of another
district, wherein a future date has been fixed
and it appears that this malice is spreading fast
in the district courts. The case which came
before this Court earlier also involved a lawyer
of District Court committing such offences
against a female Presiding Officer. In such a
situation, this Court is of the firm view that
before this meance spreads further the
accused, like the opposite party no.2, ought to
be dealt with iron hands through initiation of
proceedings for criminal contempt. Policy of
Zero Tolerance in such matters has become
imperative.

12. Accordingly, the Registry of this
Court is directed place this case before the
appropriate Bench, within two weeks for taking
suo moto cognizance of the criminal contempt
committed by the opposite party no.2., Abhay
Pratap.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 513
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 846 of 2023

Srijan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties