Female thief denied bail, condemned to custody for high court thefts

In an event of the law coming full circle, the Patiala House Court announced a judgment condemning a female offender to judicial custody for theft. The woman, whom the court refused bail, was charged with stealing laptops and iPads from the Delhi High Court complex. The court presided over by Duty Metropolitan Magistrate Parad Dalal rendered this decision on Sunday, underlining the severity of the crime and its impact.

Recognising the graveness of the act, Dalal said, “Given the seriousness of the allegations, it seems apt to commit the accused to judicial custody. The intuition of the Investigation officer stands affirmed that, if granted bail, the accused might likely flee, intimidate witnesses or reengage in similar offences utilising the same strategy.”

Questionable certainty was voiced from the culprits end denying the crime. However, the court did not find her appeals credible, where she professed that the woman portrayed in the incriminating footage was a different individual altogether.

The theft incident transpired on July 10 within the High Court. A law intern reported the loss of a bag comprising a laptop and an iPad from the primary building’s first floor. Surveillance footage distinctly captured the accused lifting the victim’s bag and later hailing an autorickshaw at Gate No. 7 of the High Court. Lawyers representing the complainant presented these facts before the court.

The legal representatives of the victim — Advocates Prabhav Ralli and Stuti Gupta — made the case that the female offender was a recurrent lawbreaker, implicated in multiple thefts in the Delhi High Court. They postulated that such incidents had instilled fear among the judiciary, particularly lawyers who routinely carry bags and laptops with them.

Meanwhile, Delhi Police presented a strong case against the accused in its argument against granting her bail. The police insinuated that she had been uncooperative during the entire investigation. Despite recognising her from the CCTV footage and serving her a notice to support the inquiry, she not only failed to comply but also resisted the officials when they reached her residence. The Investigation Officer took note of her unyielding resistance, citing that she had declined to disclose her details or furnish any personal identity proof.

The incident uses a powerful picture of Justice active within its own domain—an individual allegedly exploiting the very sanctuary of justice to subvert the law, only to be reined in by the same institution. The High Court incident underscores the necessity to fortify the premises’ security, ensuring that members can carry out their duties without fear or hindrance.