The Delhi High Court on Monday 09-January-2026 refused to grant interim protection from arrest to a senior lawyer accused of raping a 27-year-old woman advocate. The decision came even after both sides told the court that the dispute had been settled, prompting sharp remarks from the bench on the manner in which the case had unfolded.
Background of the Case
The case arises from a complaint filed by the woman advocate against a 51-year-old lawyer, accusing him of rape, assault, and criminal intimidation. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered in June 2025 at the Neb Sarai police station in Delhi.
Read also:- Supreme Court Questions West Bengal Voter Roll Revision, Seeks Unified Reply from Election Commission
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly forced himself on the complainant multiple times over nearly five years, promising marriage. The woman also claimed she became pregnant earlier this year and was later taken for an abortion. She further alleged that she was assaulted at a country club in South Delhi, where parts of the incident were captured on CCTV footage.
The matter drew public attention after allegations surfaced that two judicial officers had attempted to pressure the complainant into withdrawing her case. This led the High Court, on the administrative side, to suspend judicial officer Sanjeev Kumar Singh and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and another district court judge.
Petitions Before the Court
The accused lawyer approached the High Court through two petitions - one seeking anticipatory bail and another seeking quashing of the rape case. During the hearing, both the accused and the complainant informed the court that the dispute had been settled and that allegations against each other had been withdrawn.
Read also:- Jharkhand High Court Grants Divorce to Wife, Calls Blackmail Using Private Photos ‘Mental Cruelty’
Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, appearing for the accused, argued that the case stemmed from a personal dispute between the two lawyers. He maintained that his client had never approached any judicial officer to influence the complainant.
“The investigating officer does not require my client’s custody,” Bhandari submitted, adding that even allegations of extortion made by the accused against the complainant had now been resolved.
Court’s Observations
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, who heard the matter, expressed deep concern over the way the case had progressed. The court noted that serious allegations were first levelled, judicial officers were then dragged into the controversy, and finally, the parties claimed to have settled the matter.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Four Weeks to Shyuvraj to Pay ₹16 Lakh, Disposes Criminal SLP with Clear Warning
“We don’t know how deep this matter has gone, and we do not know what the truth is. With every passing phase, it gets more murky,” the judge remarked in open court. He also referred to having seen video recordings connected to the allegations involving judges.
The bench was particularly sceptical about the voluntary nature of the settlement, given the circumstances preceding it.
“Counsel threatens, the judges threaten, and then you are saying it is consensual,” Justice Bhambhani observed, questioning whether the compromise could truly be considered free and voluntary.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Bail to NSCN(IM) Leader Alemla Jamir After Over Six Years in Jail in UAPA Case
Decision of the Court
In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances, the High Court declined to grant interim protection from arrest to the accused lawyer.
The judge made it clear that the court was not satisfied that the settlement justified shielding the accused from arrest at this stage. However, the bench clarified that its order would not prevent the accused from pursuing other remedies available under law.
“Nothing recorded in this order would prevent the petitioner from availing his remedies, including filing for regular bail, as may be permissible,” the court said.
The High Court issued notice in the matter and listed the case for further hearing in February, bringing the proceedings to a pause while declining any immediate relief to the accused.
