Both the lawyers had denied the complainant’s allegations, and claimed that the survivor filed a police complaint after she had failed to get sufficient compensation in her divorce case.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to two advocates accused of raping their client.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol sought the response of the Kerala government and the accused in the plea filed by the survivor challenging the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused lawyers.
The interim stay was ordered for four weeks, by when the State’s reply has to be filed.
The bench was hearing an appeal challenging an October 10 Kerala High Court order.
High Court judge, Justice Gopinath P had taken note of the fact that the client filed a complaint against the accused only in June 2023, even though she had claimed she was sexually abused from the time she had approached one of the lawyers for filing her divorce case before a family court in 2021.
The High Court had opined that the material on record seemed to support the allegation that the complaint was filed because the complainant was aggrieved that she did not receive sufficient compensation during divorce proceedings.
Therefore, it had granted anticipatory bail to the two accused lawyers, subject to execution of bail bonds of ₹50,000 each.
The lawyers had been directed to cooperate with the investigation, to not influence or intimidate any witness or the complainant/ victim.
The prosecution’s case was that two practicing lawyers had sexually abused their client after she approached one of the lawyers for legal help in her divorce case.
It is alleged that the said advocate later invited her to a hotel and sexually assaulted her after spiking her drink.
It was further alleged that the said advocate promised to buy her a house and take care of her children. The abuse allegedly continued and she was asked to come to Tellicherry where the second lawyer, who was a colleague of the first lawyer, also abused her.
Additionally, it was also claimed that the first lawyer recorded nude pictures and videos of the victim on his mobile phone.
Both the lawyers were booked for offences under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused have denied the complainant’s allegations. They claimed that the victim had filed a police complaint after she failed to get sufficient compensation in her divorce case.
They had argued that the complainant was also aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner-lawyers could not follow through on their offers to give her financial aid to help in educating her child or help her buy a house.
Further, the lawyers had eventually transferred ₹3 lakhs to the survivor on the advice of their friends and relatives, it was submitted.
The advocates also contended that on July 3 this year, the survivor gave a statement to the Kozhikode Police Commissioner that any relationship between her and the accused had been purely consensual and that she had not wished to prosecute the complaint in any manner.
Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh with advocates Jogy Scaria, C Govind Venugopal, Beena Victor, Vivek Guruprasad Ballekere, and Priya M represented the complainant before the Supreme Court.
+ There are no comments
Add yours