Back
MP High Court Denies to Advocate Accused of Rape on False Marriage Promise
The has dismissed the plea of an advocate accused of raping a female client on the , a case that has raised alarms over and exploitation of a vulnerable litigant.
Justice Gajendra Singh, presiding over a single-judge bench at the , rejected the applicant's plea under , seeking protection from arrest in connection with Crime No.191/2026 registered at , District Ujjain.
The Allegations: From Legal Advice to Criminal Betrayal
According to the prosecution, the victim, who had approached the advocate for legal consultation, was repeatedly pressured into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage. The advocate allegedly told her he was unmarried and professed affection for her. After initial resistance, the victim gave in, relying on his repeated assurances. Between September and December 2025, the advocate allegedly took her to a hotel on Dewas Road on four separate occasions—, , , and —where he sexually exploited her under the continued .
When the victim pressed for marriage, the accused claimed his mother was unwell and postponed the commitment. She later discovered that he was already married and had a one-year-old child, leading her to file the FIR.
Arguments Before the Court
For the Applicant : Counsel argued that the victim’s earlier complaint on made no mention of a prior relationship or knowledge of the advocate, raising doubts about the veracity of the allegations. It was contended that the victim was now demanding money under threat, and that the applicant, a permanent resident of Ujjain, would not abscond.
For the State and Objector : The victim’s counsel presented a powerful counter-narrative, pointing to a separate FIR (Crime No.90/2026) registered on under . That complaint, they argued, specifically alleged the long-standing relationship and included claims of physical assault and an attempt by the accused to delete incriminating photographs from the victim’s mobile phone. The victim’s counsel emphasized that the relationship’s failure could not excuse the fundamental deceit, and that the advocate had misused his professional position.
Legal Analysis: The Extraordinary Remedy of
The court drew guidance from the ’s ruling in Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489), which stressed that is an “” and should not be granted routinely. The High Court quoted the apex court: “The power to grant is an ... it cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
Evaluating the investigation material—including the hotel manager’s statement confirming the repeated visits, testimonies of the victim’s parents and friends to whom the marriage proposal was communicated, and the contents of the earlier FIR—the court found sufficient grounds to deny bail. The proceedings before the on , reflecting the victim’s threats and harassment, further cemented the court’s view.
Key Observations
The court made a critical evidentiary assessment:
"Having perused the material collected during the investigation, the statement of the Manager of Hotel Dewas dated
, wherein he has stated that the applicant/accused came to his hotel with the prosecutrix on
,
,
, and
, as well as the statements of the parents and friends of the prosecutrix, to whom the proposal for marriage between the prosecutrix and the applicant was communicated, and the contents of FIR bearing Crime No.90/2026... this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of
."
The Final Decision
Justice Gajendra Singh dismissed the Misc. Criminal Case No.31612/2026, effectively denying to the advocate. The order reinforces the principle that courts must be vigilant when professional relationships mask predatory behavior, particularly where the accused occupies a . The victim’s discovery of the advocate’s existing marriage proved decisive in demonstrating the deceit that formed the basis of the charge—.
The case now proceeds to trial, with the accused facing the prospect of , a development that may serve as a deterrent to those who misuse professional standing for personal exploitation.
(Case Title: )
