HC gives advocate accused of raping lawyer time till Nov 17 to surrender

The complainant’s counsel, Jitendra Jha, opposed the extension, alleging that the man had continued to contact his client even after his anticipatory bail was cancelled

The Delhi High Court on Thursday allowed a 51-year-old advocate, whose anticipatory bail was cancelled over allegations of repeatedly raping and assaulting a 27-year-old woman lawyer, and of attempting to influence her through two judicial officers, to surrender by November 17.

As first reported by HT on September 2, the allegations were backed by audio recordings, prompting swift action. (Representational image)

The order came after the advocate’s counsel, Natasha Garg, sought additional time for him to surrender. She told a bench of justice Amit Mahajan that although the court’s November 7 order had directed him to surrender within a week—by Friday—the accused had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, likely to be listed on Monday.

The complainant’s counsel, Jitendra Jha, opposed the extension, alleging that the man had continued to contact his client even after his anticipatory bail was cancelled.

After hearing both sides, the court extended the surrender deadline to Monday, but directed the accused to strictly refrain from contacting the complainant.

“The accused is directed not to contact the complainant. If any such complaint is received, the police shall take action in accordance with law. The relief granted shall not be construed as permission to commit any further offence. The application is disposed of,” the order said.

Justice Mahajan’s November 7 ruling had cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the trial court on July 16, while hearing the woman’s plea seeking its cancellation. The court had also ordered an administrative inquiry against two district court judges whom the complainant accused of pressuring her to withdraw the rape allegations. The judge noted that the accusations reflected a “blatant disregard for the integrity of the criminal justice system”.

This came after a full court meeting of the high court on August 29 suspended one of the 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, the allegations were backed by audio recordings, prompting swift action. Records of the full court meeting revealed that the suspension and disciplinary recommendations stemmed from the woman’s detailed complaints to chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and the registrar general in July, following which a vigilance inquiry was ordered.

The complainant also alleged that she was introduced to a (then) sitting Delhi High Court judge in January 2025 through the accused’s lawyer, who promised to help her secure a law researcher position. There is no indication in the records of any role of the high court judge, and disciplinary action is confined to Singh and Kumar.

She further alleged that both judges repeatedly called her after she lodged the FIR, urging her not to undergo medical examination and to tell the magistrate that the FIR was a mistake. She claimed Singh went further, offering her a monetary settlement and saying he had already received ₹30 lakh from the accused to facilitate a compromise.