"Can't Permit Accused To Engage Lawyer On Prosecutrix's Behalf": MP HC Denies Bail To Man Whose Counsel Had Victim's Vakalatnama

Underscoring that the accused can't be permitted to engage Lawyer on behalf of the prosecutrix, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently denied bail to a rape accused whose lawyer was having the Vakalatnama of the victim. The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia the bail plea of one Ramhet booked for offence under Sections 376-D, 366 & 506 of IPC, whose counsel submitted before the Court that he was holding the vakalatnama of the prosecutrix. The facts in brief It was submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that the engagement of the prosecutrix and the co-accused Deepak had taken place and because of that engagement, the co-accused Deepak and prosecutrix indulged in consensual sex. It was submitted that there was no allegation of rape against the applicant and it was just alleged that he, along with co-accused took the prosecutrix to a hut and at the time when co-accused was committing rape on the prosecutrix, the applicant was standing outside the hut. However, when the Counsel was lead evidence to show that the engagement of the prosecutrix with the co- accused had taken place, then, changing the stand, it was submitted that only the talks of the marriage of prosecutrix with co-accused Deepak were going on. Further, when the court insisted the Counsel as to whether there is any document to show that the talks of the marriage of the prosecutrix with the co-accused Deepak were going on, it was submitted he had already received vakalatnama of prosecutrix and affidavit would be filed that victim and accused were to marry each other. Court's observations Observing that it was really shocking that Counsel for the applicant was holding the vakalatanama of the prosecutrix, the Court refereed to the recent order of the Allahabad High Court 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. In that very case, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh had noted that the said action by long-standing counsels was highly deplorable, attacking the sanctity of the profession and the institution. Read more about the case here: Collusion In Bail Hearing Through Forged Vakalatnama : Allahabad High Court Deplores 'Downfall In Moral Values' Of Advocacy Further, noting that this practice can't be appreciated, the Court remarked thus: "Thus, it is clear that the applicant is actively involved in winning over the witnesses right from the very beginning and in that the process had also succeeded in getting a vakalatnama of the prosecutrix which has been provided by him to his counsel. Unfortunately, the Counsel for the applicant also collected the vakalatnama so that a Lawyer on behalf of the prosecutrix can be engaged." Lastly, when the Counsel for the applicant submitted that that he may be permitted to withdraw the bail application, the Court refused the request and instead dismissed the bail plea noting thus: "Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that Counsel for the applicant is also holding vakalatnama on behalf of the prosecutrix and an attempt would have been made to engage another Lawyer by filing no objection affidavit of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the applicant is involved in winning over the prosecution witnesses, and his Lawyer also fell to his trap."Case title - Ramhet vs. State of M.P. & AnotherClick Here To Download OrderRead Order

"Can't Permit Accused To Engage Lawyer On Prosecutrix's Behalf": MP HC Denies Bail To Man Whose Counsel Had Victim's Vakalatnama

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags