Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail For Lawyer Accused Of Sexually Harassing Law Student

Judgement Given On :

This legal matter pertains to a Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), seeking release on bail during the trial of a case involving offenses punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered by the father of the prosecutrix (victim) against the Applicant (the accused lawyer) and another individual. The complaint alleged that the Applicant, who was a practicing lawyer, along with the co-accused, enticed his 20-year-old daughter. The prosecutrix was a law student and had been working in the High Court with the Applicant. The charges brought against both the Applicant and the co-accused included offenses under Sections 366, 376, 354-A, 328, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

In her statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) and Section 164 of the CrPC, the prosecutrix accused the Applicant of exploiting her initially and subsequently subjecting her to sexual assault. She provided details of the circumstances under which she had been threatened and continued to be exploited.

Arguments Presented by the Applicant:

The accused lawyer contended that there was a discrepancy in the prosecutrix’s statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC compared to those recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. He argued that the prosecutrix claimed to have terminated her pregnancy four times, but there was no supporting evidence for these assertions. Additionally, it was submitted that she was of legal age, well-versed in legal proceedings, and had worked alongside the Applicant in the High Court.

However, the counsel representing the State and the High Court Legal Service Committee countered these arguments by asserting that the Applicant, in his capacity as a lawyer, had exploited a law student under the pretense of providing legal training. They argued that the victim had explained the circumstances under which she was being threatened and continued to be subjected to exploitation. Regarding physical assault, the doctor’s examination revealed injuries on her body, corroborating her statements.

Court’s Observations:

After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the Court made several key observations:

  1. The Court noted that the Applicant was named in the FIR, and the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC consistently implicated the Applicant. The allegations included sexual assault and physical assault, which had persisted for a significant duration.
  2. The Court took into account the fact that the prosecutrix held a junior position in the Applicant’s office and that the allegations were directed at a lawyer and a person in a position of authority within the legal profession. The Court emphasized the respect accorded to lawyers and their offices.
  3. The Court observed that the acts complained of by the prosecutrix against the Applicant were detailed in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. There was no evident reason provided for why the Applicant would be falsely implicated.
  4. The investigation into other accused individuals was still ongoing, and there remained a possibility that both the lawyers representing the State and the Applicant could influence the investigation and tamper with evidence.

Court’s Decision:

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that it was not a suitable case for granting bail. Therefore, the Bail Application was rejected by the Court.