Read Time: 06 minutes

Dismissing the bail plea of a rape accused whose lawyer also got the vakalatnama of the victim, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that the accused "can't be permitted to engage a lawyer on behalf of the prosecutrix so that an affidavit of his own choice can be filed."

The bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia stressed that “this practice cannot be appreciated.”

The court also noted that the applicant was actively involved in winning over the witnesses right from the very beginning of the case and in that process, he had also succeeded in getting a vakalatnama of the prosecutrix which has been provided by him to his counsel.

Facts

The bench was hearing a bail plea of one Ramhet who had been arrested in connection with offence under Sections 376-D, 366 & 506 of IPC. He contended before the court that there was no allegation of rape against him, the only allegation against him was that he along-with co-accused took the prosecutrix to a hut and when co-accused was committing alleged rape on the prosecutrix, he was standing outside the hut.

He pleaded for bail on the ground that the engagement of the victim and the co-accused had taken place and the sex between them was consensual.

However, when the counsel of the applicant was asked to point out to any document to show that such engagement had taken place, he changed the stand and submitted that in fact talks of marriage of victim with co-accused were going on.

Thereupon, when the court enquired whether there was any document to show that the talks of such marriage were going on or not, the counsel for the applicant submitted that he had already received vakalatnama of prosecutrix and affidavit would be filed that victim and accused were to marry each other.

Taking note of the issue, the court observed that it was really shocking that counsel for the applicant was holding the vakalatanama of the prosecutrix.

Court also referred to a recent order of the Allahabad High Court in Javed Ansari Vs. State of U.P. wherein the advocates appearing on behalf of the accused and the complainant were acting in collusion, and the counsel for the complainant had filed forged vakalatnama at the directions of the counsel for the accused.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh had stated in the earlier matter that the said action by long-standing counsels was highly deplorable, attacking the sanctity of the profession and the institution.

The counsel for the applicant, thereafter, submitted before the court that he may be permitted to withdraw the bail application, however, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the instant ill practice, the court held that no case was made out even to accept the prayer for withdrawal.

Therefore, rejecting the bail plea, the court noted that it was clear that applicant was involved in winning over the prosecution witnesses, and his lawyer also fell to his trap.

Case title - Ramhet vs. State of M.P. & Another