New Delhi: A trial court has resumed hearing a case after it was sent back by the principal district and sessions judge when the accused distanced himself from his counsel’s earlier incriminating remarks against a judge, and expressed regret over it.At the core of the dispute is the ownership and custody of the pet dog, called Roxy. Rajesh Kumar Atri complained that his dog was wrongfully taken by Pranav Grover and not returned. When police initially didn’t register an FIR, the complainant approached the court, which on Feb 25 directed that the dog should be recovered and an FIR be registered.The matter was transferred on March 7.Earlier the trial court judge Shivali Bansal had recused herself when Grover’s counsel, appearing via video conference, had allegedly levelled corruption allegations against the presiding officer. “Paisa kha ke bethi hai, isliye kuch nahi kar rahi,” the counsel said. “Agar aaj high court khula hota to main chief justice ki court mein ja kar mention karta, tum public servant ho, main officer of the court hoon.”Recording these remarks, the trial court said it wasn’t inclined to proceed with the hearing and directed that a copy of the order sheet be sent to the Bar Council of Delhi, while also preserving audio-video recordings of the proceedings.The controversy arose during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court directed the applicant to join the investigation and granted interim protection from arrest. However, there was confusion when Grover’s counsel claimed that the trial court had directed police to recover a pet dog by a specific time, a direction the court clarified had not been issued in the bail proceedings.When the case returned to her, Judge Bansal, while taking up the matter again, criticised the lawyer’s “highly improper” conduct, observing that such baseless allegations against a judge can “scandalise the court, interfere with due course of judicial proceedings and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice”. The court noted that the allegations were made without the applicant’s “consent and knowledge”.The trial court flagged investigative lapses, noting that “no interrogation report qua applicant is found” despite claims that the applicant joined the probe, and questioned the failure to trace the dog.Notices have now been issued summoning the SHO and concerned investigating officers to appear in person.The court has also directed that a copy of the order, along with a transcript of the incident, be sent to Delhi High Court for information and necessary action.
