The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, on 27 September 2025, rejected the bail plea of advocate Yawar Khan, who was arrested earlier this month on allegations of repeatedly raping a woman and forcing her into human trafficking. The hearing, before Justice Vishal Mishra, drew attention for its sharp exchanges and detailed arguments from both sides.
Background
The case goes back to a 2023 FIR registered at Ashoka Garden Police Station in Bhopal under charges including rape, human trafficking, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The matter took a dramatic turn when, during her deposition in trial court, the victim identified Khan as one of her abusers. She admitted that she hadn’t named him earlier because she didn’t know his identity at the time, but recalled his involvement after hearing his name in court proceedings.
Senior advocates Vivek Tankha and Shashank Shekhar, appearing for Khan, argued that his arrest was illegal. They said the police acted directly on the victim’s courtroom statement without following the proper legal route under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires a court’s direction before implicating someone after charge-sheet filing. “The arrest itself is bad in law; once the charge sheet is filed, the police cannot bypass the trial court,” Tankha stressed.
Court’s Observations
The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh, strongly opposed the plea, along with counsel for the complainant. They argued that the victim’s testimony was clear and specific, detailing instances where Khan allegedly forced himself on her, including in his office and at another associate’s residence. The prosecution also highlighted her claim that Khan and others had coerced her into sex trafficking and later threatened to reveal her personal identity if she refused to continue.
To bolster their stand, the State cited several Supreme Court precedents, including State v. Hemendra Reddy (2023) and K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi (2024), to underline that courts can permit further investigation when new facts emerge, even after the filing of a charge-sheet.
Justice Mishra, after listening to arguments, noted that the victim’s direct accusation, coupled with allegations of trafficking and threats, warranted a deeper probe.
“The record indicates that the applicant was identified in court and named as having committed rape on multiple occasions. Under such circumstances, a detailed investigation is required,” the judge observed.
Decision
Finding no merit in Khan’s plea, the High Court dismissed his application. The bench ruled that given the gravity of the allegations and the victim’s statement, bail could not be granted at this stage. With this, Khan will remain in custody as investigations continue.
Case Title: Yawar Khan vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Misc. Criminal Case No. 43436 of 2025
Date of Order: 27 September 2025