The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant bail to a lawyer accused of raping his client [Prakash Narayan Sharma v State].Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that due to the lawyer's close familiarity and intimate relationship with the survivor, granting bail to the lawyer may create opportunities for the accused to influence the survivor, especially since the survivor's statement has not yet been recorded by the trial court. .Referring to the disputed facts of the case, the Court observed that the lawyer appeared to have acted beyond the capacity of an advocate."It may not be a case of honeytrap rather the applicant has acted beyond 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 remarked..The judge was also prompted to highlight that while the relationship between a lawyer and his client is generally founded on trust and confidence, "the facts of (the) present case are absolutely contrary to it.".The Court was hearing a bail plea moved by the accused lawyer, booked for rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code..As per a First Information Report (FIR), the survivor came in contact with the accused after she approached him in his capacity as a lawyer. The accused is later stated to have gained her trust over time, and they eventually entered into a relationship.The Court took note of submissions that the survivor was frequently seen traveling with the accused lawyer and his wife. Further, the Court was informed that there were several photographs of the survivor posing comfortably alongside the accused, even in the presence of his wife. Additionally, there were also photographs capturing intimate moments between the survivor and the accused..It was submitted on behalf of the survivor that the lawyer had portrayed himself as a powerful individual with close connections to prominent individuals, including judges and officials. Furthermore, he was also accused of being involved in the production of pornographic films and to have exhibited numerous unsolicited photographs of other women. The survivor claimed that she was forced by the lawyer to engage in intimate poses and to allow him to take explicit photographs. She alleged further that she was forced to engage in non-consensual physical relations with the accused. As per the survivor, the lawyer had threatened her with severe consequences if she refused to comply with his demands. Moreover, she also claimed that he took money from her, which he later refused to repay. .However, the accused lawyer's counsel countered that the relationship between the parties was consensual. He asserted that it was a case of the survivor setting a honeytrap after willingly posing in intimate positions and accepting money from the accused. Subsequently, the survivor also blackmailed the accused, he added..The Court commented that there is substance in the accused-lawyer's contention that this may be a case of a consensual relationship having gone sour due to a monetary dispute. All the same, given the nature of evidence collected, the Court opined that there was a prima facie indication that the accused lawyer had "some other interest" and was engulfed in such activities "instead of being active and diligent towards his profession."."It also appears that victim was trapped in the web of pornography created by applicant and she was forced to act in terms of directions of applicant including to have physical relationship with him as well as to allow him to have photographs in indecent manner," the Court added. .The Court, ultimately, rejected the bail plea to avoid the possibility of the survivor getting influenced by the accused-lawyer before her statement is recorded..Senior advocate VP Srivastava along with advocate Vijay Kumar Mishra represented the accused.AGA Sunil Srivastava appeared for the State while advocate Yogendra Kumar Srivastava represented the survivor..[Read Order]
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant bail to a lawyer accused of raping his client [Prakash Narayan Sharma v State].Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that due to the lawyer's close familiarity and intimate relationship with the survivor, granting bail to the lawyer may create opportunities for the accused to influence the survivor, especially since the survivor's statement has not yet been recorded by the trial court. .Referring to the disputed facts of the case, the Court observed that the lawyer appeared to have acted beyond the capacity of an advocate."It may not be a case of honeytrap rather the applicant has acted beyond 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 remarked..The judge was also prompted to highlight that while the relationship between a lawyer and his client is generally founded on trust and confidence, "the facts of (the) present case are absolutely contrary to it.".The Court was hearing a bail plea moved by the accused lawyer, booked for rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code..As per a First Information Report (FIR), the survivor came in contact with the accused after she approached him in his capacity as a lawyer. The accused is later stated to have gained her trust over time, and they eventually entered into a relationship.The Court took note of submissions that the survivor was frequently seen traveling with the accused lawyer and his wife. Further, the Court was informed that there were several photographs of the survivor posing comfortably alongside the accused, even in the presence of his wife. Additionally, there were also photographs capturing intimate moments between the survivor and the accused..It was submitted on behalf of the survivor that the lawyer had portrayed himself as a powerful individual with close connections to prominent individuals, including judges and officials. Furthermore, he was also accused of being involved in the production of pornographic films and to have exhibited numerous unsolicited photographs of other women. The survivor claimed that she was forced by the lawyer to engage in intimate poses and to allow him to take explicit photographs. She alleged further that she was forced to engage in non-consensual physical relations with the accused. As per the survivor, the lawyer had threatened her with severe consequences if she refused to comply with his demands. Moreover, she also claimed that he took money from her, which he later refused to repay. .However, the accused lawyer's counsel countered that the relationship between the parties was consensual. He asserted that it was a case of the survivor setting a honeytrap after willingly posing in intimate positions and accepting money from the accused. Subsequently, the survivor also blackmailed the accused, he added..The Court commented that there is substance in the accused-lawyer's contention that this may be a case of a consensual relationship having gone sour due to a monetary dispute. All the same, given the nature of evidence collected, the Court opined that there was a prima facie indication that the accused lawyer had "some other interest" and was engulfed in such activities "instead of being active and diligent towards his profession."."It also appears that victim was trapped in the web of pornography created by applicant and she was forced to act in terms of directions of applicant including to have physical relationship with him as well as to allow him to have photographs in indecent manner," the Court added. .The Court, ultimately, rejected the bail plea to avoid the possibility of the survivor getting influenced by the accused-lawyer before her statement is recorded..Senior advocate VP Srivastava along with advocate Vijay Kumar Mishra represented the accused.AGA Sunil Srivastava appeared for the State while advocate Yogendra Kumar Srivastava represented the survivor..[Read Order]
