The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed for bail in Crime under Sections 147, 323, 354, 354-K, 406, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C.
The court observed that a very crucial factor that goes against the applicant is that he is well acquainted with the victim and had intimacy with her and since the statement of the victim has not been recorded till date, at this stage, if the applicant gets bail, he will try to influence her.
Brief Facts:
The informant of the present case is the victim. She had approached the applicant as his client to take up her cases. During frequent interactions, they became close and entered into a relationship that included the victim visiting along with the applicant and his wife to various places as well as along with the applicant only to various places. They were deeply involved in a physical relationship also.
The victim alleged that she gave the applicant a loan of Rs. 40 lakhs as he wanted to contest an assembly election. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 04.01.2023, on a road nearby the Court campus, a scuffle took place between the victim and the applicant and his associates wherein she was mercilessly beaten even on her private parts.
The victim further disclosed that earlier, the applicant had posed himself to be an influential person and that he was involved in preparing porn films and threatened the victim to act in terms of the direction of the applicant and allow him to click her photographs in intimating positions. He threatened her with dire consequences if she refuse to act in terms of the directions of the applicant.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that his relationship can be termed as a honeytrap that initially the victim has not objected to taking intimated photographs with the applicant, even in their birthday suits.
Further, he submitted that it may be a case where strong intimacy and consensual relationship between applicant and victim become sour with the passing time. No independent witness was examined in regard to the allegation of assault by the applicant and the victim has already given her statement during the investigation and has also given a number of photographs to the prosecution which are part of the record; therefore, there is no likelihood that applicant may influence the victim.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the applicant is an advocate only for name and his real business was to prepare porn films and for that, he used his women clients earlier also and the victim was also trapped in the web of the porn industry.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that there is a substance in the argument of the learned Senior Advocate that due to certain monetary disputes, the consensual relationship between applicant and victim becomes sour. However, it may not be a case of honeytrap; rather, the applicant acted beyond the relationship of an advocate and client and entered an arena where social boundaries were broken and later on led to various disputes and allegations which includes financial disputes also for that there are rival claims.
Further, the Court remarked that circumstances such as the factor of a long consensual relationship, nature of photographs, nature of evidence regarding the allegation of pornography, and rival claims on the financial dispute, may tilt towards the applicant for consideration of his bail application; however, a very crucial factor still goes against the applicant: that he is well acquainted with victim and had intimacy with her, and since during trial, the statement of the victim has not been recorded till date, at this stage, if the applicant gets bail, he will definitely try to influence her.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, dismissing the application, held that considering the overall aspects of the present case, the position of the applicant, and the nature of the allegations, there is no substantial ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
Case Title: Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali v State Of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10374 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. V.P. Srivastava
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Srivastava
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
