Can’t Allow Accused To Interact Lawyer On Prosecutrix’s Behalf: MP HC

Case title – Ramhet vs. State of M.P. & Another

Emphasizing that the accused cannot be allowed to interact Lawyer on behalf of the prosecutrix, the MP 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 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.

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 court wherein the advocates appearing on behalf of the accused and therefore the complainant were acting in collusion, and therefore the counsel for the complainant had filed forged vakalatnama at the directions of the counsel for the accused.

In that particular 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 therefore the institution.
Further, noting that this practice can’t be appreciated, the Court remarked thus:

“Thus, it’s clear that the applicant is actively involved in winning over the witnesses right from the very beginning and therein the method 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 in order that a Lawyer on behalf of the prosecutrix are often engaged.”

At last , 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 including the very fact that Counsel for the applicant is additionally 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.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s