The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Advocate Vijay Singh Yadav, who was arrested for sending birthday wishes to a lady judge of the Ratlam District Court (Vijay Singh Yadav v. State of MP)..A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar allowed the second bail application of Yadav, who was arrested on February 9 after he sent Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Mithali Pathak an email and a birthday card on January 29. .It was alleged that he used a photograph of the lady judge from her Facebook account and pasted it on his message on the birthday card..The Court granted bail to the applicant, warning that if he is found indulging in such activities again, the police would be entitled to arrest him."The application filed by the applicant is allowed subject to the condition that if it is found that the applicant in any manner directly or indirectly tried to approach the concerned Judge (the victim herein) and tries to stalk her in any manner, this order shall stand cancelled without further reference to the Court and the police shall be entitled to arrest the applicant in the present case.".Before the High Court, counsel for the applicant submitted that the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed and that Yadav is languishing in jail since February 9. Further, the trial would take a long time to conclude on account of the limited functioning of courts due to COVID-19. It was also pointed out that the applicant is an advocate with no criminal antecedents, and that he tendered an unconditional apology for sending the birthday wish. He further averred that he would never try to approach the concerned judge and would not practice in her Court in the future. .On the other hand, counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that "looking to the conduct of the applicant, no case for grant of bail is made out.".After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court allowed the bail application of Yadav on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court..Yadav was arrested and charged with offences under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 469 (Forgery for purpose of harming reputation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 41 read with 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form)..During an earlier hearing of the case, the High Court had ordered a medical examination of the applicant to ascertain his mental health.Justice Rohit Arya had noted that the accused lawyer indulged in an "unethical activity" despite being a married person with four children and that his action caused embarrassment to the lady judge."It has transpired that prima facie the applicant is though styled as a married person with four children aged about 37 years but is alleged to have indulged in highly objectionable unethical activity unbecoming of an advocate while causing embarrassment to a lady judge through WhatsApp and on social media portals," the Court had stated..[Read order]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Advocate Vijay Singh Yadav, who was arrested for sending birthday wishes to a lady judge of the Ratlam District Court (Vijay Singh Yadav v. State of MP)..A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar allowed the second bail application of Yadav, who was arrested on February 9 after he sent Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Mithali Pathak an email and a birthday card on January 29. .It was alleged that he used a photograph of the lady judge from her Facebook account and pasted it on his message on the birthday card..The Court granted bail to the applicant, warning that if he is found indulging in such activities again, the police would be entitled to arrest him."The application filed by the applicant is allowed subject to the condition that if it is found that the applicant in any manner directly or indirectly tried to approach the concerned Judge (the victim herein) and tries to stalk her in any manner, this order shall stand cancelled without further reference to the Court and the police shall be entitled to arrest the applicant in the present case.".Before the High Court, counsel for the applicant submitted that the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed and that Yadav is languishing in jail since February 9. Further, the trial would take a long time to conclude on account of the limited functioning of courts due to COVID-19. It was also pointed out that the applicant is an advocate with no criminal antecedents, and that he tendered an unconditional apology for sending the birthday wish. He further averred that he would never try to approach the concerned judge and would not practice in her Court in the future. .On the other hand, counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that "looking to the conduct of the applicant, no case for grant of bail is made out.".After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court allowed the bail application of Yadav on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court..Yadav was arrested and charged with offences under Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 469 (Forgery for purpose of harming reputation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 41 read with 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form)..During an earlier hearing of the case, the High Court had ordered a medical examination of the applicant to ascertain his mental health.Justice Rohit Arya had noted that the accused lawyer indulged in an "unethical activity" despite being a married person with four children and that his action caused embarrassment to the lady judge."It has transpired that prima facie the applicant is though styled as a married person with four children aged about 37 years but is alleged to have indulged in highly objectionable unethical activity unbecoming of an advocate while causing embarrassment to a lady judge through WhatsApp and on social media portals," the Court had stated..[Read order]