MP High Court Denies Bail to Advocate Accused of Repeated Sexual Assault and Coercion of Minor Girl into Trafficking, Citing Need for Detailed Investigation
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra, rejected the bail plea of an advocate accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor girl and allegedly coercing her into human trafficking. The Court noted that during trial proceedings the victim identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the assaults and described his role in pressuring her to return to the trafficking network. Finding that the allegations required detailed investigation and that releasing the applicant at this stage could hinder the inquiry, the Court refused to grant bail.
The matter arose from a bail application filed by an advocate who was arrested in September 2025 in connection with offences including sexual assault and human trafficking. The underlying crime was originally registered in 2023. During the ongoing trial proceedings, the victim, while giving her testimony, identified the applicant in court as a person who had repeatedly raped her at his office and at another location. She explained that she had not mentioned his name earlier because she was unaware of it and recognized him only when she heard it during the court proceedings.
Following this testimony, the trial court did not itself take cognizance of the new allegations but forwarded the victim’s statement and related records to the police authorities for appropriate action. Acting on this material, the police arrested the applicant.
The applicant sought bail, contending that his arrest was improper since it occurred after the charge sheet had already been filed in the original case. He argued that the police should have obtained directions from the trial court under the applicable procedure before arresting him. He further claimed there was no substantive evidence against him, that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation, and cited previous Supreme Court rulings on post-charge-sheet arrests.
The prosecution opposed the application, relying on the victim’s fresh identification of the applicant as sufficient grounds for further investigation. It alleged that the applicant, along with others, had coerced the victim into human trafficking and had subsequently threatened her to return to that activity. The prosecution asserted that his custody was necessary for a proper and unhindered investigation.
Justice Mishra recorded: “The record indicates that during the court proceedings, the victim has identified the present applicant and has made a categorical statement that the applicant is the person who had committed rape with her on several occasions.” The Court further recorded the victim’s detailed account that the applicant had called her to his office and also committed rape in the house of one Vitthal.
The order stated: “She was not knowing his name, but as soon as some other advocate has taken his name, then she immediately recollected that the applicant is the same person who had committed rape with her.”
Justice Mishra held: “Under these circumstances, as the specific allegations were levied against the present applicant by the victim, coupled with the fact she was dragged in human trafficking by the present applicant and other co-accused as per the allegations of the prosecution which requires detailed investigation into the matter, therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage.” Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail application filed by the applicant.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant: Shri Vivek Kumar Tankha, Senior Advocate, Shri Shashank Shekhar, Senior Advocate, with Shri Samresh Katare and Shri Ekanshu Lahana, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Shri B.D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State, and Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate
Case Title: YK v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:50007
Case Number: MCRC No. 43436 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vishal Mishra
