Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Lawyer Accused Of Raping And Trafficking Minor Girls Repeatedly

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied bail to a Lawyer accused of raping and trafficking minor girls repeatedly and using the noble profession of advocacy as a shield to keep cover.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(cha), 370, 419 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

The Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra observed, "...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 Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vivek Kumar Tankha, while the Respondent was represented by Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Applicant stated that the Victim, in her statement before the Court, stated that the Applicant who is an Advocate, committed rape on her, after which the Police Authorities took action and arrested him. It was argued that the said arrest of the Applicant was in pursuance to an offence which was registered way back in the year 2023 and the statement of the victim before the Court cannot be made the basis of the arrest of the Applicant. He argued that proper procedure has to be followed in the matter while referencing to Supreme Court's decision in Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab, (2023), wherein certain guidelines have been framed.

It was argued that after filing of the charge-sheet before the trial Court, no such arrest can be made by the police authorities as they have already submitted a charge-sheet in the matter and they were required to file appropriate application before the trial court seeking proper direction. It was submitted that the Applicant is a practicing Advocate at the District Court Rewa for years together, and the manner in which the action has been taken against him by the Police authorities is per se illegal.

On the other hand, the Deputy Advocate General and the Counsel for the Objector placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hemendra Reddy and Another (2023) wherein it is held that the Magistrate has powers to issue a direction for further investigation into the matter, as there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the final report is submitted before the Court. Reliance was further placed on K. Vadivel vs. K. Shanthi (2024) wherein a similar proposition was followed by the Supreme Court. It is further contended that there are specific allegations levied against the present Applicant by the victim and this is not the first time when such allegations have been levied against him.

It was contended that the Applicant is a habitual offender and taking aid of the fact that he is continuing in a noble profession of advocacy, he is committing these offences time and again and the matter requires a detailed investigation into the matter and the police authorities have jurisdiction to take him into custody for further investigation the matter. It was further contended that the Applicant and other co-accused dragged the victim into human trafficking and once she somehow managed to settle her life, they again threatened her to disclose her identity as she had solemnized marriage, showing herself to belong to the Hindu community. It was contended that they were again forcing her to come back in the human trafficking business

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the Deputy Advocate General and the Counsel for the Objector that the specific allegation levied against the Applicant warrants detailed investigation.

The Application was accordingly rejected.

Cause Title: Yawar Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2025:MPHC-JBP:50007)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Vivek Kumar Tankha, Senior Advocate Shashank Shekhar, Advocate Samresh Katare and Advocate Ekanshu Lahana

Respondent- Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh, Advocate Sankalp Kochar

Click here to read/ download Order