New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to a 51-year-old advocate accused of repeatedly raping and assaulting a 27-year-old woman lawyer and allegedly attempting to influence her through judicial officers.The accused approached the high court on February 27 after the trial court on February 26 refused to grant him regular bail. (Photo for representation)A bench of justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the allegations concerning interference with the judicial process, based on the material presently relied upon by the State, are undoubtedly serious, but the material indicated that it was the woman who had approached the officers and that neither of the judicial officers was concerned with or seized of the case arising from the FIR in their judicial capacity.“Coming to the allegations of interference with the judicial process, the material presently relied upon by the State is undoubtedly serious. However, as pointed out by the petitioner, even on the State’s reckoning, the communications which have surfaced are between the prosecutrix and two judicial officers known to the prosecutrix, which also show that it was the prosecutrix who had approached those officers; and that the judicial officers were not concerned with, or seized of, the case arising from the FIR in their judicial capacity,” the court said in its order.The court also noted that the investigation was materially complete, barring certain pending FSL reports, and observed that the accused had already spent a substantial period in judicial custody as an undertrial.The accused approached the high court through his counsel, Sacchin Puri, on February 27, after the trial court on February 26 refused to grant him regular bail.In his petition, he submitted that he and the complainant had amicably resolved their dispute and executed an MoU on November 29, under which she affirmed that she had no surviving grievance against him. He further argued that the two judicial officers whose recorded conversations surfaced in the matter were known to the prosecutrix due to her prior internships with them and had no relevant association with him, and she had regularly contacted the officers, including at odd hours. It was also argued that any interaction took place purely in a personal capacity arising from their prior acquaintance, and not in connection with any pending judicial proceedings.The Delhi police, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Richa Dhawan, opposed the grant of bail, contending that the allegations against them were grave in nature and included forcible sexual intercourse, criminal intimidation, physical assault, and exploitation of the prosecutrix under a false promise of marriage, as well as allegations concerning the prosecutrix’s medical termination of pregnancy. The counsel further relied upon what it described as “glaring” instances of interference with the administration of justice, alleging that two judicial officers attempted to pressurise the prosecutrix into weakening her case and that such acts were carried out at the man’s behest.In its 17-page judgment, the bench observed that any action against the judicial officers concerned would proceed independently and in accordance with law, but such proceedings could not, by themselves, constitute a ground to deny bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question.The high court, on August 29, last year, had suspended one of the district judges and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him and another judge based on the woman’s complaint.As first reported by HT on September 2, last year, the complaint was backed by audio recordings, which prompted the swift intervention.The woman complainant approached the high court’s chief justice, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, in July, and later the registrar general, following which a vigilance inquiry was ordered.The complainant also contended that she was introduced to a (then) sitting Delhi high court judge in January 2025, through the accused’s lawyer, who promised to get her appointed as a law researcher.