Kerala High Court grants anticipatory bail to rapper Vedan in rape case

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam rapper, lyricist and performing artist Hiran Das Murali, popularly known as Vedan, in connection with a rape case registered against him based on a woman's complaint accusing him of sexual abuse on the promise of marriage [Hiran Das Murali v State of Kerala & Anr]..Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order today after noting that there was material to show that, prima facie, the past relationship between Vedan and the complainant appeared to have been consensual. "The breakup of relationship between consenting couples lead to criminal proceedings and consequential arrest will lead to destroy the future of an individual. The said proposition has significance, especially when there is prima facie materials to assume that the relationship was al along consensual in nature and was between persons who had the ability to comprehend the nature of the act and the consequences," he said. .The judge noted that the alleged relationship began in 2021 at instance of the complainant and continued till 2023, and that there were numerous occasions when the complainant stayed with Vedan and had physical relations. The Court added that there was no allegation that Vedan had made a promise to marry the complainant at the start of this relationship. "In such circumstances, denying anticipatory bail to petitioner would result in serious prejudice," the Court concluded while granting the rapper relief. Responding to an argument, the Court also remarked that a 'lack of moral virtues' is not a factor for determining the grant of anticipatory bail."Further moral values or the moral virtues or the lack of it cannot be the criteria for determining the legality of an issue raised against it before a court of law," the order said. The Court held that though there were serious allegations levelled against Vedan, no custodial interrogation was needed, and therefore granted him pre-arrest bail. The Court also ordered Vedan to appear before the police from 10 AM to 5 PM on September 9 and 10, to join for interrogation. .In its order, the Court noted that in cases like this, it is important to examine the facts to see if it is a case of a sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage, or if it was a case where a promise genuinely made was not followed through later.It went on to note that there is a thin line between consent given for sex on the basis of a false promise of marriage and consent on that is based on an expectation or assumption of marriage.It added that it is illogical to always label sexual relations as rape merely because the relationship has ended."Nevertheless, the facts remains that labelling a physical intimacy as rape after relationship ceases to exist is illogical," it said.It proceeded to examine the legal ingredients of valid consent for sexual relations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the law invoked in this case since the alleged offence dates back to 2021-23."Section 375, IPC requires consent after understanding the various consequences of the proposed act before making a reasoned decision," it noted, before eventually opining that there appears to have been consent for sexual relations in this case. .Earlier, on August 19, the Court had granted him temporary protection from arrest.The case against Vedan was registered by the Thrikkakara Police based on a young doctor's complaint.According to the first information report (FIR), after the complainant reached out to Vedan as a fan in 2021, they began a consensual relationship, and with time, the relationship turned intimate.The complainant alleged that Vedan repeatedly made promises to marry her, which led to multiple instances of physical intimacy and financial transactions..In his anticipatory bail plea, Vedan had submitted that the relationship was voluntary and consensual and that the complaint was motivated due to a personal fallout between the two.His counsel had argued that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, the legal ingredients of rape under Sections 376 (punishment of rape) and 376(2)(n) (commits repeated rape on the same woman) of the Indian Penal Code were not made out. Citing several precedents, it was also argued that a broken promise of marriage, especially in a long-standing consensual relationship, does not automatically amount to rape unless the promise was false from the beginning.Vedan also argued that there was a nearly two-year delay in filing the complaint and stressed that his custodial interrogation was unnecessary..The complainant had opposed the grant of relief to the rapper, arguing that there were similar complaints made by other women against him, making him a habitual offender. The Court, however, noted today that the possibility that other women may also register cases against Vedan is not relevant to consider his anticipatory bail plea in the present case. "Contention of the defacto complainant ... (that) another crime that may be registered against him by another women are not matters under consideration in this case. Those allegations can not be a determinant in the instant case," it said. Vedan was represented by advocates S Rajeev, V Vinay, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, KS Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V, Akash Cherian Thomas, and Azad Sunil.The complainant was represented by advocate Bimla Baby.