Read Time: 07 minutes

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday denied bail to a lawyer accused of sexually assaulting a law student practicing under him.

A single-judge bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed, "The prosecutrix was junior in the office of the applicant. The allegations are against a person practicing law and a person in uniform involved in a noble profession. The office of a lawyer is not less respected than the Courts of law.”

A First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix against the applicant, Advocate Rajkaran Patel and another Sipahi Lal Shukla under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The father alleged that his 20-year-old daughter was enticed away by both the accused persons. He further alleged that his daughter was practicing in the High Court with Patel. Both the accused were booked under Sections 366, 376, 354-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

The prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and Section 164 CrPC, alleged that the applicant exploited her at the initial stage and then committed sexual assault on her. She further explained the circumstances under which she was being threatened and continued to be exploited.

In defense, the accused advocate submitted that there had been an enhancement by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as compared to that of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

He further argued that the prosecutrix alleged that she had aborted her pregnancy four times but there was no evidence regarding the same. It was further submitted that she is a major as per her version, used to come to the High Court with an Advocate and was working with him and as such was in the knowledge of legal proceedings.

However, the counsel for the State and the High Court Legal Service Committee contended that the applicant, as an advocate, had exploited a girl who was a law student on the pretense of imparting legal training to her through his office and courts.

They further contended that the victim had explained the circumstances under which she was being threatened and was continued to be exploited. And so far as the physical assault is concerned, the doctor found injuries on her body which confirm her version in the statements recorded, they told. 

Court noted that the allegations against the applicant were of sexual assault and physical assault upon the prosecutrix which had continued for a substantially long period, and that the act as complained of by her against the applicant was told by her in detail in her statements recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Court further stated that there has been no reason spelled out as to why the applicant is being falsely implicated.

 “The investigation for other accused persons is pending and the apprehension of learned counsel for the State and of the panel lawyer of High Court Legal Service Committee of the applicant being in a position to influence the investigation and tamper with the evidence cannot be ruled out at this stage,” Court observed. 

“Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected,” ordered the court.

Case Title: Rajkaran Patel v. State of U.P