Yadav, was arrested after he sent Judicial Magistrate (First Class) an email and a birthday card. It was alleged that he had downloaded the judge’s photo from her Facebook account and attached it with the birthday card.
Published on : 29 Mar, 2021 ,
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered medical examination to ascertain the mental health of a lawyer accused of sending objectionable birthday wishes to a lady judge (Vijaysingh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh).
Single-judge Justice Rohit Arya, noted that the accused lawyer, Vijaysingh Yadav indulged in an “unethical activity” despite being a married person with four children and his action has 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, therefore, ordered his medical examination by a qualified doctor.
“It appears expedient to direct for his mental checkup through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court.“
The Court also directed the Additional Advocate General, Pushymitra Bhargav, to ensure compliance with the said direction through Superintendent of Police and other authorities.
Yadav, 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 had downloaded Pathak’s photo from her Facebook account and attached it with the birthday wish/card.
It was alleged by the complainant that Yadav downloaded the picture of the judge without any authorization and he sent the email to her official account. It was also contended that Yadav was not added as a friend on the judge’s Facebook account, and such ‘unauthorized access’ or use of the photograph would attract provisions of the Information Technology Act.
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).
On February 13, the family members of the accused had applied for bail on his behalf, but the same was rejected.
This prompted Yadav to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In the bail plea, Yadav contended that he has been implicated with unnecessary and unwanted charges. He submitted that there was “no intention” to deteriorate the reputation of the judge. Moreover, he claimed that he does not possess much knowledge about ‘internet access‘ and social media.
Advocate B.B. Singh appeared for the applicant-accused, Advocate Ranjeet Sen (Panel Lawyer) appeared for the respondent/State.
The matter will be heard next on April 15.