HC extends time for lawyer to surrender
The Delhi High Court on Thursday extended till November 17 the time for a lawyer to surrender in a rape case lodged against him by a woman advocate.
On November 7, Justice Amit Mahajan gave the 51-year-old lawyer a week to surrender before the trial court after his bail was cancelled.
The court directed the accused not to contact the woman lawyer. In case he does, Delhi Police is at liberty to take appropriate action against him, it said.
During the hearing, the counsel of the accused urged the court to extend by a week the time for him to surrender on the ground that they have filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the bail cancellation order and it is likely to be mentioned for listing on Monday.
On November 7, the high court cancelled the pre-arrest bail of the accused lawyer, holding that one of the main tenets was interference with the process of law.
Last week, the court also ordered an administrative inquiry against two judicial officers for their alleged role in coercing the woman lawyer to retract her allegations in the rape case.
The high court said it was appalled by the involvement of judicial officers in a case of such a nature. It observed that though the allegations were a matter of further investigation, they indicated a “flagrant lack of respect towards the criminal justice machinery”.
In her complaint, the 27-year-old woman lawyer alleged that she met the accused through a friend and had gone to his house for a party, where he raped her and later promised to marry her since he was a widower.
She alleged that the man continued to establish physical relations by emotionally blackmailing her, and she got pregnant in May this year.
The woman alleged that the accused maintained cordial relationships with certain judicial officers and that they had, prior to and even after the registration of the FIR, attempted to contact and influence her.
The woman’s counsel submitted that she was contacted by a judicial officer after the registration of the FIR and advised not to go for the medical examination.
The counsel claimed that the judicial officer offered a monetary settlement to induce her to compromise, and informed her that he had kept Rs 30 lakh to be paid to her.
Her counsel further claimed that the officer concerned also coerced the woman to dilute the case in her statement and told her that the accused would compensate her further for it.
