The Telangana High Court has granted anticipatory bail to two practising advocates accused of rape under the pretext of a false promise to marry and abetment of suicide involving a fellow legal professional.
Issuing the order on August 21, Justice N. Tukaramji held that custodial interrogation of the accused was not warranted in the matter. The court observed that acts of verbal abuse, humiliation, or disagreement do not in themselves constitute abetment of suicide unless accompanied by deliberate instigation or a direct physical link to the act.
As part of the bail conditions, the court instructed the petitioners not to tamper with evidence or attempt to influence, threaten, or induce witnesses. The bench also ordered both lawyers to provide their full residential addresses and mobile numbers to the investigating officer and to report any subsequent changes promptly.
Allegations of Assault and Coercion
The legal proceedings stem from a formal representation submitted by the complainant on July 24, following which police registered a case. According to the prosecution, the woman—a divorced junior advocate—joined a law firm in 2021, where she met the primary accused, who was also working as a junior advocate.
The complainant alleged that the main accused forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her in March 2023 and continued a physical relationship for approximately two years under the promise of marriage. She stated that he lived with her, introduced her to his family as his prospective wife, exerted control over her movements, physically assaulted her, and forced her to ingest emergency contraceptive pills.
She further alleged that the man subsequently reneged on his promise to marry, made disparaging remarks regarding her marital history and child, and blocked her from seeking other matrimonial prospects. Following alleged continuous harassment, the woman attempted suicide on May 24 and July 8. She also stated that both the main accused and the co-accused subjected her to derogatory remarks and intimidation during proceedings at a police station and during a mediation session before the local bar association on July 13.
Defense Claims and Judicial Decision
Contesting the charges, the petitioners argued that the allegations were false, vague, and brought as an afterthought. The primary accused maintained that the relationship was a consensual live-in arrangement that began in 2023. In support of his position, he cited financial transactions amounting to approximately Rs 10 lakh, along with text messages, audio recordings, and photographs, maintaining these were matters to be examined during trial.
The defense added that the claims against the second lawyer were limited primarily to verbal altercations during mediation. Both petitioners highlighted that they were practising advocates without criminal antecedents and argued that an arrest would inflict lasting damage on their professional careers.
While state counsel and the complainant opposed the bail petition by citing prima facie evidence, the High Court noted that detailed evaluation of evidence or final findings on the merits of a case are not required at the stage of deciding anticipatory bail applications.
