Advocate Vijay Singh Yadav, who was detained for sending birthday greetings to a lady judge of the Ratlam District Court, has been granted bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Vijay Singh Yadav v. State of MP).
Yadav's second bail application was granted by a single judge bench led by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, who was arrested on February 9 after sending Judicial Magistrate (First Class)Mithali Pathak an email and a birthday card on January 29.
He allegedly copied a photo of the lady judge from her Facebook account and put it on his birthday card message.
The applicant was granted bail, but the court warned that if he was seen engaging in such behaviour again, the police would have the right to arrest him.
"The applicant's application is allowed subject to the condition that if it is discovered that the applicant attempted to approach the concerned Judge (the victim herein) in any way, directly or indirectly, and tries to stalk her in any way, this order shall stand canceled without further reference to the Court, and the police shall be entitled to arrest the applicant in the present case."
The charge sheet in this matter has already been filed, and Yadav has been in jail since February 9, according to counsel for the petitioner before the High Court. Furthermore, due to the restricted functioning of courts as a result of COVID-19, the trial would take a long time to complete.
It was also mentioned that the applicant is an attorney with no criminal history and that he apologized unconditionally for sending the birthday greeting. He further stated that he would never contact the concerned judge and that he would no longer practice in her court.
The State, on the other side, objected to the petition, claiming that "looking at the applicant's behavior, no cause for grant of bail is made out."
The Court granted Yadav's bail motion on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court after hearing the parties' representations.
Yadav was arrested and charged with offenses 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).
The High Court had ordered a medical examination of the petitioner during an earlier hearing in the case to determine his mental condition.
Despite being married with four children, the accused lawyer engaged in "unethical activity," according to Justice Rohit Arya, and his actions embarrassed the lady judge.