Delhi HC issues notice in bail plea of 51-year-old lawyer accused of rape

Delhi High Court issued notice for interim bail to a lawyer accused of raping a colleague and attempting to influence judicial officers; next hearing is March 19.

New Delhi

A bench of justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani sought Delhi Police’s response and scheduled the next hearing for March 19. (Representative photo)

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice in a petition, seeking interim bail, filed by a 51-year-old advocate accused of repeatedly raping and assaulting a 27-year-old woman lawyer and allegedly attempting to influence her through judicial officers.

A bench of justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani sought Delhi Police’s response and scheduled the next hearing for March 19.

The accused approached the high court on February 27 a day after a trial court refused to release him on regular bail. In the interim, he sought to be released on interim bail until the court took a call on his regular bail plea.

On February 25, the trial court refused to grant relief to the advocate and ordered that he be taken into custody forthwith. The court noted that despite the dismissal of his petitions by both the high court and the Supreme Court, the accused neither surrendered nor appeared before the magistrate and trial court. A day later, the court dismissed his bail plea stating that he not only attempted to evade the process of law, but, in fact, tried to subvert the course of the trial.

During the hearing, the 51-year-old lawyer’s advocate, Abhimanyu Bhandari, submitted that his client and the complainant had amicably resolved the dispute and entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on November 29, 2025, in which she had affirmed that she has no subsisting grievance against his client. He added that his client had already spent 15 days in jail.

However, the court said that the despite the settlement, the accused had attempted to interfere in the judicial process. “Settlement between two parties is one thing, but there is an attempt to interfere in the judicial process, and it can’t be between two parties … you’re trying to influence the judges here…,” the bench remarked.

In a full-court meeting on August 29, 2025, the high court suspended one of the district judges, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him and another judge, Anil Kumar, based on the woman’s complaint.

As first reported by HT on September 2, 2025, the complaint was backed by audio recordings, which prompted the swift intervention. Records of the full court meeting of August 29, accessed exclusively by HT, revealed that suspension and disciplinary action were sparked by complaints of grave judicial misconduct that the complainant made before the high court’s chief justice, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, in July, and later to the registrar general, following which a vigilance inquiry was ordered.

The complainant also contended that she was also introduced to a (then) sitting Delhi high court judge in January 2025 through the accused’s lawyer, who promised to get her appointed as a law researcher.

In November 2025, the high court cancelled the lawyer’s anticipatory bail and granted him one week to surrender. Besides cancelling the bail, justice Amit Mahajan had also ordered an administrative inquiry against two district court judges, accused of pressuring her to withdraw the rape allegations made against the advocate, observing that the allegations reflected a blatant disregard for the integrity of the criminal justice system.

On February 25, the trial court refused to grant relief to the advocate and ordered that he be taken into custody forthwith. A day later, the court dismissed his bail plea stated that the accused lawyer not only attempted to evade the process of law, but, in fact, tried to subvert the course of the trial. On February 27, the high court issued notice in the lawyer’s regular bail application and granted him interim bail for two days—March 3 and 4.