MP High Court Denies Bail To Lawyer Accused Of Raping, Trafficking Minor Girl Citing Specific Allegations Needing Detailed Probe

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to grant bail to an advocate practising in the District Court accused of raping and dragging minor girl into trafficking, who had named the accused after she recollected it later during court proceedings, observing that there were specific allegations levelled against the accused.

The bench of Justice Vishal Mishra observed that as per the record, "during the court proceedings the victim has identified the present applicant" and has made a categorical statement that the "applicant is the person who had committed rape with her on several occasions".

"She has given a categorical statement that applicant had called her to his office and committed rape with her. She was not knowing his name, but as soon as some other advocate has taken his name, then she immediately recollected that the applicant is the same person who had committed rape with her," the court noted.

The high court said that the trial Court has not taken any cognizance in the matter but had sent the statement of the victim and records to the police authorities for taking necessary action in the matter, in pursuance to which, the applicant was got arrested. It then said:

"Under these circumstances, as the specific allegations were levied against the present applicant by the victim, coupled with the fact she was dragged in human trafficking by the present applicant and other co-accused as per the allegations of the prosecution which requires detailed investigation into the matter, therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage".

The accused, a practising advocate in the Rewa District Court, approached the High Court seeking regular bail in a 2023 FIR booked for kidnapping (Section 363), Procuration of a minor girl (Section 366-A), Rape (Section 376), Trafficking (Section 370), Cheating by impersonation (Section 419), and Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-B) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. He had been in custody since September 13.

The advocate was named by the victim while her statement was being recorded by the Trial Court. The police authorities then took action and arrested the accused advocate.

Counsel for the accused claimed that the arrest was illegal and made pursuant to an offence registered in 2023. It was further claimed that he could not have been arrested, based only on the victim's statement, without following the proper procedure laid down under CrPC.

Relying on the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab, it was argued that once a chargesheet has been filed before the trial court, no arrest can be made by the authorities. It was contended that the chargesheet in the present matter was already submitted and that the authorities were now required to file an appropriate application seeking proper directions.

Deputy Advocate General for State, however, submitted that during the victim's examination-in-chief, she categorically stated that the accused committed rape with her.

It was argued that the complainant had in her explanation submitted that when she heard the name of the present applicant by some other advocate during court proceedings, "she recollected the fact that the applicant is the same person who had also committed rape with her".

The prosecution drew the court's attention to her statement wherein she has categorically stated that the present applicant had made forceful physical relations with her on several occasions.

It was further claimed that the Trial Court did not issue any directions, but rather handed over the material to the police officers to investigate the matter further, which was within the domain of the court. Thus the State said, the Court is having jurisdiction to direct for further investigation into the matter as and when a new fact comes to the knowledge of the Court.

The state asserted that the accused was a habitual offender who had been taking advantage of his practice in a noble profession. It was also contended that the accused, with four others, had "dragged the victim into human trafficking".

It was claimed that they threatened to disclose her identity as she has solemnized marriage showing herself to be belonging to Hindu community, and are forcing her to come back in the human trafficking business

Therefore, the state prayed for dismissal, claiming that a detailed enquiry was necessary.

The bail plea was dismissed.

Case Title: YK v State of MP (MCRC-43436-2025)

For Applicant: Senior Advocates Vivek Kumar Tankha and Shashank Shekhar with Advocates Samresh Katare and Ekanshu Lahana

For State: Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh

For Victim: Advocate Sankalp Kochar

Click here to read/download Order