Fake Influence Over Judges for Money? Fraudulent Claims of Access to Judges Strike at Public Faith: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in ₹28.5 Lakh Judicial Influence Fraud Case
Case Name: Jitender Singh @ Jeetu v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-25019-2026
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused regular bail to an accused alleged to be part of a conspiracy that duped a litigant of approximately ₹28.5 lakh by falsely claiming influence over Judges and government officials. The Court held that such allegations strike at the very foundation of public faith in the administration of justice and cannot be viewed lightly.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 169 dated 03.12.2021 registered at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
The prosecution case originated from a complaint filed by Gajraj, whose father, a suspended Patwari, had unsuccessfully litigated claims relating to service benefits up to the Supreme Court. According to the complainant, he was introduced to the principal accused, Mithun and Rajender Kaushik, who allegedly represented that Rajender’s daughter, Kiran, was an advocate with close connections to Judges posted at Chandigarh and Faridabad. The accused allegedly assured the complainant that they could secure favourable orders from the Punjab & Haryana High Court through their influence over Judges and government officials.
The complainant alleged that the accused demanded commission and repeatedly induced him to make payments on the assurance that his father’s litigation and service benefits would be resolved. It was claimed that forged court orders, fabricated documents, photographs of purported government cheques and other false representations were used to convince him that favourable judicial orders had already been obtained. Relying upon these assurances, the complainant allegedly paid approximately ₹28.5 lakh over a prolonged period.
According to the prosecution, the accused continued demanding money on various pretexts, including payments allegedly required for Judges, government officers and departmental formalities. Eventually, inquiries made by the complainant revealed that the documents shown to him were allegedly forged and that the accused had conspired to cheat him by exploiting his desire to secure service benefits for his father.
Seeking bail, the petitioner argued that he was merely a driver employed by the principal accused and had been falsely implicated because of that association. It was contended that he neither forged documents nor induced the complainant to part with money and that his only alleged role was accompanying the main accused on certain occasions. The petitioner further submitted that he had already undergone nearly one year of custody and that prolonged incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was not a passive bystander but an active participant in the conspiracy. It was argued that he personally collected money from the complainant on multiple occasions and repeatedly assured him that favourable orders could be procured through the influence of the co-accused. The prosecution emphasized that the scheme involved exploiting litigants by falsely projecting access to judicial officers and thereby undermining public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that the allegations disclosed a well-orchestrated scheme whereby unsuspecting litigants were induced to part with substantial amounts of money on the false promise of securing favourable judicial orders through influence and illegal means. The Court noted that such allegations, if established, strike at the very foundation of public faith in the administration of justice.
The Court further emphasized that the legitimacy of the judicial institution rests upon public confidence and that any attempt to exploit litigants by falsely claiming influence over judicial functioning for monetary gain seriously undermines the sanctity, integrity and credibility of the justice system. The Court also took note of the specific allegations that the petitioner actively participated in collecting money and repeatedly reinforced assurances regarding procurement of favourable judicial orders.
Finding the allegations grave and serious, and considering their wider impact on the credibility of the justice delivery system, the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Decision: Dismissing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused regular bail to the petitioner. The Court held that the allegations reflected a calculated conspiracy involving extraction of substantial amounts from a litigant by falsely claiming influence over Judges and government authorities, thereby affecting the purity and credibility of the judicial system.