The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to an IT professional accused by his former divorce lawyer after their consensual relationship ended. The Court held that criminal law cannot be misused after a personal fallout.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has granted major relief to a man who was booked in a criminal case after entering into an intimate relationship with his own divorce lawyer. The case drew strong observations from the Court on professional ethics and misuse of criminal law after a consensual relationship breaks down.
The Supreme Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man in a criminal case filed by a woman lawyer who had been representing him in his matrimonial dispute before they entered into a personal relationship. The matter was heard by a Bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna, which examined the facts in detail and found no justification for custodial action against the man.
A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna had earlier berated the woman lawyer and questioned her conduct as an advocate for indulging in an intimate relationship with her client, especially when she was helping him get a divorce.
During earlier proceedings, the Court openly expressed its disapproval and asked the lawyer:
“Why did you get into this mess?”
-the Court had asked her then while protecting the man from arrest in the interim.
These remarks reflected the Court’s concern about ethical responsibility and accountability expected from legal professionals.
The Court carefully analysed the nature of the relationship and the criminal allegations. It noted that the two had been in a consensual relationship which later broke down, that neither party intended to marry the other, and that the criminal complaint was unwarranted. The Bench made it clear that a failed personal relationship cannot automatically become a criminal case, especially when consent was never in dispute.
On behalf of the prosecution, it was argued that several strong coercive steps had already been taken against the man. The prosecution argued that several coercive steps had already been initiated against the man, working as an IT professional in London, including the issuance of a non-bailable warrant, proclamation proceedings, a lookout circular and even a blue corner notice. Despite these submissions, the Court was not convinced that such extreme measures were justified in the facts of the case. The bench however, remained unmoved.
In its final decision, the Supreme Court confirmed the interim relief already granted. In an order passed on January 7, the Court made its earlier interim protection absolute and granted anticipatory bail to the man. This ensured that he would not be arrested in connection with the case.
Taking into account that the man is currently living abroad, the Court also issued clear directions for his protection. Given that the man is presently residing in London, the Court clarified that the order would protect him if he returns to India for investigation or for any other purpose. This clarification safeguards his liberty while ensuring cooperation with the investigation process.
The Court further ensured fairness by directing proper communication from investigating authorities. It further directed that he should be informed of investigation dates well in advance so that he can make necessary travel arrangements. This prevents harassment and unnecessary pressure on an accused living overseas.
Since anticipatory bail was being granted, the Supreme Court also stayed all coercive measures against him. Since anticipatory bail was being granted, the Court ordered that the lookout notice, blue corner notice and the order declaring the man a proclaimed offender should remain in abeyance. This order effectively halted all international and domestic enforcement actions against the man.
The judgment sends a strong message against the misuse of criminal law as a tool of pressure or revenge, while reminding legal professionals of their ethical duties and responsibilities.
Explanatory Table For All Laws & Sections Referred To In This Case
| Law / Provision | Section | Explanation |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 438 (Implied) | Anticipatory bail provision under which protection from arrest was granted. The section is not expressly mentioned but is inherent to the relief granted. |
| Criminal Procedure (Coercive Measures) | Non-bailable Warrant | Issued earlier against the accused; stayed due to grant of anticipatory bail. |
| Criminal Procedure | Proclamation Proceedings | Initiated earlier declaring the accused a proclaimed offender; kept in abeyance. |
| Immigration / Police Powers | Look Out Circular (LOC) | Issued against the accused; ordered to remain in abeyance. |
| International Police Cooperation | Blue Corner Notice | Issued earlier; directed to remain in abeyance after grant of bail. |
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Date of Order | 7 January 2026 |
| Nature of Matter | Anticipatory Bail |
| Bench | Justice B. V. Nagarathna |
| Petitioner | Husband / Accused (IT professional based in London) |
| Respondent | State & Complainant (Female Advocate / Divorce Lawyer) |
| Current Status | Anticipatory bail granted; interim protection made absolute |
Key Takeaways
- A consensual adult relationship, even if ethically questionable, does not become a criminal offence after a breakup.
- Criminal law cannot be misused to harass men once a personal relationship turns sour.
- Courts will intervene when coercive actions like warrants and lookout notices are used as pressure tactics.
- Professional misconduct allegations cannot be shifted into criminal liability against a man.
- This judgment strengthens the principle that consent, autonomy, and fairness apply equally to men under law.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.