'Victim Was Trapped In Pornography Web': Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Advocate Accused Of Raping Client

The Allahabad High Court on Friday denied bail to an advocate who has been accused of repeatedly making physical relationships with the victim, his client, against her wishes after threatening her with dire consequences.

While rejecting his bail plea, the bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was of the view that the accused is well acquainted with the victim and since during the trial, the statement of the victim has not been recorded to date, therefore, if he gets bail at this stage, he will definitely try to influence her.

The case in brief

As per the facts of the case, the victim approached the accused, an advocate, as a client to take up her cases, however, with the passage of time, they became close and entered into a relationship. The victim also used to visit various places along with the applicant and his wife.

In fact, a number of photographs were placed on record to show that the victim was comfortable with the applicant even in the presence of his wife and in certain photographs, both, the applicant and victim, were looking comfortable, even when their photographs were being clicked in their birthday suits in intimate positions.

Now, it was the case of the victim that the accused posed himself to be an influential person and that he was involved in preparing porn films and had shown multiple unsolicited photographs of other women and threatened her to act in terms of the direction of the applicant and even to allow him to click her photographs in intimating gestures and positions and has repeatedly made physical relationship with her against her wishes.

She also alleged that the accused took an amount of Rs. 40 lacks from her as a loan and refused to return the same.

Following the registration of FIR under sections 147, 323, 354, 354-K, 406, 504, 506, and 376 IPC, the accused was arrested in February this year. Now, seeking bail in the case, he moved to the High Court,

Appearing for the accused advocate, Senior Advocate VP Srivastava argued that it was only a consensual relationship and the victim had accompanied with applicant even along with his wife to various places and had very close intimacy with the victim

It was further submitted that this relationship can be termed as a honeytrap as initially, the victim did not object to taking of intimate photographs with the applicant, even in their birthday suits, and later on, she started making demands for money and when the same was not given by the accused, she came up with this case. 

On the other hand, the Counsels for the state as well as the victim argued 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.

High Court's observations

Though the court observed that there was substance in the argument of the Senior Advocate appearing for the accused that due to certain monetary disputes, the consensual relationship between the applicant and victim becomes sour, however, the Court added that it appeared that the victim was trapped in the web of pornography created by the applicant.

"...considering the nature of evidence collected during investigation, specifically, nature of photographs placed on record of applicant and victim being intimated even in their birthday suits prima facie indicates that applicant was having some other interest and was engulfed in such activity instead of to be 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 the directions of the applicant including to have a physical relationship with him as well as to allow him to have photographs in an indecent manner. As such 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 said.

Further finding that the victim has lodged the FIR and has remained consistent in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the Court refused to grant him bail.

Case title - Prakash Narayan Sharma @ Babali vs. State of UP [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10374 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 156

Click Here To Read/Download Order