Read Time: 07 minutes
The victim had claimed that the advocate was actually involved in porn business and he used to trap his female client for that.
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to an advocate accused of raping and mercilessly beating his female client.
Court held that since the advocate had had an intimate relationship with the victim and the statement of the victim was yet to be recorded, he might influence the victim if released on bail.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that from the facts of the case, it appeared that the victim was trapped in the web of pornography created by the accused and she was forced to act in terms of his directions including having a physical relationship with him.
"As such it may not be a case of honeytrap rather the applicant has acted beyond the relationship of an advocate and client and entered in an arena where social boundaries were broken and later on led to various disputes and allegations which includes financial dispute also for that there are rival claims," the court opined regarding the present case.
A bail plea had been filed before the high court by the accused advocate who was facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 354, 354-K, 406, 504, 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR was lodged by the victim herself who alleged that she came into contact with the accused as his client but later, the accused gained her confidence and they entered into a relationship.
The victim also used to travel with the accused and his wife. There were photographs in which the victim could be seen posing comfortably along with the accused even in the presence of the accused's wife and there were also photographs of intimate moments between the victim and the accused.
Further, the victim claimed that the accused had also taken a loan of Rs 40 lakh from her for contesting an assembly election which he later refused to return.
Moreover, the victim alleged on January 4, 2023, on a road nearby the court campus, a scuffle took place between her and the accused during which the accused and his associates beat up her mercilessly, even on her private parts.
The victim claimed that by posing himself as an influential person who had close relations with judges and government officers, the accused had forced to do as he said.
Pressing for bail, the counsel for the accused argued that though it was true that the accused and the victim had an intimate relationship, it was consensual.
He contended that the present matter pertained to a honeytrap laid by the victim herself who voluntarily got clicked in intimate positions and took money from the accused and later started blackmailing him.
However, the claims were refuted by the victim' counsel who asserted that the accused was an advocate for only name's sake and his real business was to prepare porn films for which he had used his women clients earlier also.
The high court opined that though prima facie it appeared that due to certain monetary dispute, the consensual relationship between the accused and the victim became sour, there was also material on record that indicated that the accused might have been involved in shady activities.
Therefore, considering the overall aspects of the present case, court rejected the bail plea.
Case Title: Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali v. State of UP
Please Login or Register
