The Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, recently denied anticipatory bail to a woman advocate accused of playing a pivotal role in a case where a minor girl was allegedly subjected to repeated rape and was coerced into changing her religion.
The case details reveal that the accused advocate was allegedly instrumental in facilitating the crime. It was claimed that she actively assisted in portraying that the primary accused had married the victim, thereby attempting to exonerate him of any wrongdoing. Moreover, she was accused of advising the primary offender, a Muslim, to register a sham marriage with the victim, who was a Hindu.
The advocate then allegedly helped in fabricating documents to support this fictitious marriage. Additionally, when the victim’s parents approached the police, the accused advocate purportedly pressured the victim to confront her parents and adopt a hostile stance against them.
In her defense, the advocate sought anticipatory bail from the High Court, arguing that she had merely provided professional advice to the complainant regarding marriage registration. She contended that her actions, at most, were minor deviations from her professional duties and shouldn’t be considered criminal.
However, after reviewing the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, the Court deduced that the advocate had actively participated in the crime, violating professional ethics, and had taken measures to protect the primary accused and obstruct the investigation. The Court highlighted,
“The present applicant was in constant contact with co-accused for 10 times and with another accused No.2 for 70 times, which speaks volumes about her active role and participation which is far-fetched from her rendering professional services and therefore, custodial interrogation is required as the offence is against a minor girl.”
Given the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the crime, and the objectives of the POCSO Act, the Court found no merit in granting the advocate anticipatory bail. Consequently, her plea was dismissed. Justice Suthar emphasized that the legal profession should not be used as a shield for criminal activities, stating that no one should
“enshrine his or her illegal act under the guise of a noble profession.”