BAIL DENIED TO LAWYER INVOLVED IN EXPLOITATIVE RELATIONSHIP: “NOT A CASE OF HONEYTRAP” – ALLH. HC

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has denied bail to Prakash Narayan Sharma, a lawyer implicated in a case involving allegations of exploitation and abuse of trust. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., sheds light on the breakdown of professional boundaries and the importance of maintaining ethical conduct within the legal profession.

The case, identified as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10374 of 2023, revolves around an intimate relationship between the applicant, Prakash Narayan Sharma, also known as Babali, and the victim. The victim, who is also the informant, initially approached Sharma as her lawyer to handle her legal matters. However, the relationship between the two evolved, leading to frequent interactions and a level of intimacy that extended beyond the lawyer-client dynamic.

During the proceedings, photographs were presented as evidence, showcasing the applicant and the victim in compromising positions. The court, taking note of the photographs, stated, “The nature of photographs prima facie indicates that applicant was having some other interest and was engulfed in such activity instead of being active and diligent towards his profession.” The court further emphasized that the allegations of pornography were not substantiated with sufficient evidence collected during the investigation.

The judgment elucidated the trust and confidence that should exist between a lawyer and their client, noting the contradictory nature of the facts in this case. “The facts of the present case are absolutely contrary to [the trust and confidence between a lawyer and client],” the court observed. It highlighted the allegations made by the victim, including claims of threats, coercion, forced physical relationships, and extortion of money.

Despite acknowledging certain factors in favor of the applicant, such as the consensual nature of the relationship and the allegations of a financial dispute, the court concluded that the applicant’s close acquaintance with the victim posed a significant concern. The court expressed apprehension that if granted bail, the applicant could potentially influence the victim’s statement, as it had not yet been recorded during the trial.

The judgment further underscored the need for the expeditious recording of the victim’s statement, directing the trial court to prioritize this within three months. The court firmly asserted, “Considering overall aspects of the present case, position of applicant and nature of allegations, I do not find any substantial ground to grant bail to applicant at this stage.”

Date of Decision: 19.5.2023

Vijay Kumar  vs State of U.P.