Delhi High Court Denies Protection to Lawyer in High-Profile Rape Case
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim protection from arrest to a lawyer accused of raping a 27-year-old colleague. Despite reports that the two parties had reached a settlement, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani declined the request, citing the “murky” nature of the case and its impact on the integrity of the judiciary.
Key Developments in the Case
- Settlement Rejected: Although the accused and the complainant informed the court they had settled the matter, Justice Bhambhani expressed concern that the agreement might not be truly consensual.
- Judicial Integrity: The judge noted that the case had “made a mockery of the judicial system,” involving allegations that two judicial officers were used to pressure the complainant.
- No Immunity: The court clarified that while the accused is not protected from arrest, he remains free to seek other legal remedies, such as filing for regular bail.
Background of the Allegations
The case, which originated from an FIR filed in June 2025, involves serious charges including:
- Rape and Assault: The complainant alleges the 51-year-old lawyer assaulted her over five years under the false pretext of marriage.
- Coerced Abortion: The prosecution claims the accused forced the complainant to undergo an abortion.
- Influence Peddling: The matter gained national attention after the Delhi High Court suspended a judicial officer for allegedly helping the accused pressure the victim to drop the charges.
Arguments from the Defense
Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, representing the accused, argued that:
- The allegations stemmed from a personal dispute that has since been resolved.
- The accused never personally approached judicial officers to influence the case.
- Since a settlement was reached and extortion claims against the complainant were withdrawn, custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
Court’s Stance
Justice Bhambhani remained firm, highlighting the suspicious timeline of events:
“Counsel threatens, the judges threaten, and then you are saying it is consensual… With every passing phase, it gets more murky.”
The court has issued a formal notice in the matter and scheduled the next hearing for February.
Would you like me to summarize the specific legal grounds for denying anticipatory bail in cases involving alleged judicial interference?
