Kerala High Court refuses to cancel bail of lawyer accused of rape on false promise of marriage

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a petition which sought to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to a lawyer accused of raping another lawyer on the false promise of marriage..Justice G Girish opined that the trial court order granting anticipatory bail to the accused lawyer warranted no interference."The learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted pre-arrest bail to the accused, subject to strict conditions, to ensure that the investigation would proceed without any fetters. Adequate safeguards were incorporated in the aforesaid bail order for the custodial interrogation and the collection of evidence on the basis of the above procedure. So also, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had imposed appropriate conditions to ensure that the accused would co-operate with the investigation and shall not try to influence or intimidate the witnesses," the Court said. .The prosecution case against the accused lawyer was that since July 2023, he subjected the complainant to repeated sexual assault under the pretext of marriage. The accused also allegedly coerced the complainant to have an abortion in February 2024. The couple resided together for some time in a rented residence, but the complainant alleged that she later discovered that the man was in a relationship with another woman. She also accused the lawyer of stealing her belongings, including gold, documents and property deeds of a rented residence..On May 17, a trial court granted anticipatory bail to the accused lawyer, opining that this was a case of a consensual relationship gone sour. The complainant subsequently approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the relief granted by the trial court. .However, the High Court opined that the trial court's reasoning in granting anticipatory bail was sound and, therefore, no interference is warranted. The observations regarding the seemingly consensual nature of the relationship were made merely for the purpose of deciding the question of anticipatory bail and would have no impact on the trial, the Court clarified. Although the prosecution informed the Court that the accused has not been cooperating with the investigation, the Court noted that neither the prosecution nor the investigating agency had moved the trial court to cancel bail. The Court, therefore, deemed it fit to dismiss the petition. "If the investigating agency has got a complaint that any of the aforesaid conditions have been violated by the accused, they could very well approach the court which granted the pre-arrest bail, for the cancellation of the bail granted. At any rate, it is not possible for this Court, in exercise of the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, to set aside the bail order, since the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for granting pre-arrest bail, cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, I find that the present petition is devoid of merit," the order stated. .The petitioner (complainant) was represented by Advocates Raghul Sudheesh, Lakshmi J, Ambily T Venu, Unnikrishnan S Thandayaan and Umadevi M.The accused was represented by Advocates S Rajeev, V Vinay, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, KS Kiran Krishnan and Dipa V.Public Prosecutor Sudheer G appeared for the State..[Read Order]