Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a regular bail application filed by an advocate regarding an FIR filed against him under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2), 370, 419 & 120 B of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 3 and 4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (“POCSO”), the Single Bench of Vishal Mishra, JJ., rejected the application, holding that the allegations of human trafficking and rape required further investigation.
Background
During the Trial Court proceedings, when the victim’s statement was being recorded, wherein she stated that the accused advocate had also committed rape with her, the police authorities arrested the present applicant.
Allegedly, the victim explained that previously, she did not name the accused advocate because she was unaware of his name. When she heard his name during court proceedings, she recollected that he was the same person who had also raped her on several occasions. It was contended that the accused advocate and other co-accused dragged the victim into human trafficking. Once she had somehow settled down, they started threatening to disclose her identity as she solemnized marriage by claiming that she was Hindu to force her to continue with the human trafficking business on the instructions of the co-accused persons.
The State contended that, after considering the victim’s statement, the Trial Court handed over the material available before the Court to the police authorities for further investigation, which was within the Court’s domain. Furthermore, in 2013 too, allegations were levied against the accused advocate and proceedings were initiated against him, though the same were stayed by the Court. The State contended that the accused was a habitual offender and took advantage of the fact that he was in the noble profession of advocacy.
Analysis
The Court stated that the record indicated that during the Court Proceedings, the victim identified the accused advocate and made a categorical statement that he was the person who had committed rape with her on several occasions. She categorically stated that he had called her to his office and a house and committed rape with her.
The Court noted that the victim did not know his name, but as soon as some other advocate said his name, she immediately recollected that the accused advocate was the same person who had raped her. The Court further noted that the Trial Court did not take any cognizance of the matter; however, it sent the statement of the victim and records to the police authorities for taking necessary action in the matter, in pursuance of which, the accused advocate was arrested.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail application, holding that no case for the grant of bail was made out at this stage as specific allegations against the accused advocate were made by the victim, coupled with the fact that she was dragged into human trafficking by him and other co-accused as per the allegations of the prosecution, which required a detailed investigation into the matter.
[A v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 7200, decided on 27-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Senior Advocates Vivek Kumar Tankha and Shashank Shekhar, Advocates Samresh Katare and Ekanshu Lahana
For the respondent: Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh and Advocate Sankalp Kochar
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
