The Allahabad High court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Samit Gopal rejected the bail of a High Court Advocate Patel, who has been accused of sexually and physically assaulting a Law Student for a long period of time. (Rajkaran Patel v. the State of U.P.)
Facts of the case
A First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix against the applicant, Advocate Rajkaran Patel and another Sipahi Lal Shukla under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The father alleged that his 20-year-old daughter was enticed away by both the accused persons. He further alleged that his daughter was practicing in the High Court with Patel. Both the accused were booked under Sections 366, 376, 354-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
The prosecutrix had, in her statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and under Section 164 CrPC, alleged that the applicant/advocate exploited her at the initial stage and then committed sexual assault on her.
She also explained the circumstances under which she was being threatened and continued to be exploited.
Contention of the Parties
The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated as there were discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and there was a lack of medical evidence. It was further argued that the prosecutrix kept changing and improving her statement.
However, the State opposed the bail plea arguing that the case was one where an advocate exploited a law student on the pretext of imparting legal training to her. It was also submitted that being an advocate, there were chances of the applicant tampering with evidence, if released on bail.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, "The victim in the case was junior in the office of the applicant. The allegations are against a person practising law in uniform and who is involved in a noble profession. The office of a lawyer is not less respected than a court of law."
The court observed, "After having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report (FIR) in the statements of the victim recorded under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) sections 161 and 164. The name of the applicant and the role assigned to him is consistent throughout."
The bench rejecting the bail application remarked, "The allegations are of sexual assault and physical assault upon her, which had continued for a substantial long period. The act as complained of by her against the applicant is told by her in detail in her both statements. There has been no reason spelt out as to why the applicant is being falsely implicated."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
