Jagran correspondent, New Delhi. The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim protection from arrest to an advocate accused of raping a 27-year-old woman advocate and later trying to influence her through two judicial officers.
Despite giving information regarding the settlement between the two parties, the bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani refused to grant relief. The bench remarked that the accused and the complainant have made a mockery of the justice system by blaming each other and settling the case after involving judicial authorities.
The bench said that the court does not know what is the truth of the matter and with the passage of time the matter is becoming more complicated. In such a situation, the court will not provide any protection from arrest to the accused advocate. However, the bench clarified that the court will not stop the petitioner from applying for regular bail or adopting any legal process.
The court made the above observations while hearing two separate petitions filed by the accused advocate. The petition demanded anticipatory bail in the case and cancellation of the case filed against him. The female advocate had filed a complaint against the 51-year-old advocate accusing him of rape, criminal intimidation and assault.
An FIR was lodged at Neb Sarai Police Station in June 2025. The woman alleged that the accused advocate forced herself on her several times over five years on the pretext of marriage and she became pregnant. The woman was assaulted at a country club in south Delhi and the incident was captured in CCTV footage, police said.
Senior advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, appearing for the accused advocate, argued that his client had not approached any judicial officer to put pressure on the complainant. He said that there was a fight between the accused and the complainant and hence an FIR was lodged. He had accused the lady officer of extorting money from his client, but the matter has been resolved and all charges have been withdrawn.
However, the bench said that in this case, the settlement cannot be by mutual consent in view of the circumstances preceding it. The bench said that lawyers threaten, judges threaten, and then you are saying that this happened with mutual consent. Earlier, in a full court meeting on August 29, the High Court had suspended District Judge Sanjeev Kumar Singh and recommended disciplinary action against him and another judge Anil Kumar on the basis of the woman's complaint.