The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to two Kerala advocates accused of raping their client [XXX v. MJ Johnson and Others]..A Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said in"...respondents (accused) are lawyers and were in a dominant position so far as the victim is concerned and therefore the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to them, under the impugned order dated 18.10.2023. Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel in his turn submits that the respondents were taken into custody on 06.05.2024 and currently they are lodged in jail. Representing the State of Kerala, Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned counsel submits that the investigation of the case is continuing. 3. Having considered the circumstances here and more particularly the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to both accused," the Court ordered.The Court has made it clear that on release on bail, the two advocates must not communicate in any manner with the victim or any other witnesses connected with the case. It also clarified that the trial court may impose any other bail conditions which is considered necessary, after hearing the Public Prosecutor..On December 1, the top court had stayed a Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to the two advocates. The Court had sought the response of the Kerala government and the accused in the plea filed by the survivor/victim challenging the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused lawyers.Senior Advocate V Chitambresh, appearing for the survivor, argued that the anticipatory bail order passed by the High Court was perverse. The Court agreed with this argument but said it would grant bail since the two advocates are now in custody..The High Court had noted that the survivor had 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 the divorce proceedings..The prosecution's case was that the two practicing lawyers had sexually abused their client after she approached one of them for legal help in her divorce case.It is alleged that the said advocate 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 Thallasery, where the second 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 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 denied the survivor's allegations, claiming that she filed a police complaint after she failed to get sufficient compensation in her divorce case.It was claimed that she was also aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner-lawyers could not follow through on their offers to give her financial aid to help educate her child or buy a house.Further, the lawyers had eventually transferred ₹3 lakh 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..Advocates Jogy Scaria, Beena Victor, C Govind Venugopal, Vivek Guruprasad Ballekere, Keerthipriyan E, M Priya and Ashwani Kumar Soni, appeared for the victim.Senior Advocate R Basant and advocate John Mathew appeared for the accused advocates.Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, Advocate-on-Record Harshad V Hameed, advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad and Shivam Sai, appeared for the State of Kerala..[Read Order]
The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to two Kerala advocates accused of raping their client [XXX v. MJ Johnson and Others]..A Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said in"...respondents (accused) are lawyers and were in a dominant position so far as the victim is concerned and therefore the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to them, under the impugned order dated 18.10.2023. Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel in his turn submits that the respondents were taken into custody on 06.05.2024 and currently they are lodged in jail. Representing the State of Kerala, Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned counsel submits that the investigation of the case is continuing. 3. Having considered the circumstances here and more particularly the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to both accused," the Court ordered.The Court has made it clear that on release on bail, the two advocates must not communicate in any manner with the victim or any other witnesses connected with the case. It also clarified that the trial court may impose any other bail conditions which is considered necessary, after hearing the Public Prosecutor..On December 1, the top court had stayed a Kerala High Court order granting anticipatory bail to the two advocates. The Court had sought the response of the Kerala government and the accused in the plea filed by the survivor/victim challenging the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused lawyers.Senior Advocate V Chitambresh, appearing for the survivor, argued that the anticipatory bail order passed by the High Court was perverse. The Court agreed with this argument but said it would grant bail since the two advocates are now in custody..The High Court had noted that the survivor had 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 the divorce proceedings..The prosecution's case was that the two practicing lawyers had sexually abused their client after she approached one of them for legal help in her divorce case.It is alleged that the said advocate 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 Thallasery, where the second 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 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 denied the survivor's allegations, claiming that she filed a police complaint after she failed to get sufficient compensation in her divorce case.It was claimed that she was also aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner-lawyers could not follow through on their offers to give her financial aid to help educate her child or buy a house.Further, the lawyers had eventually transferred ₹3 lakh 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..Advocates Jogy Scaria, Beena Victor, C Govind Venugopal, Vivek Guruprasad Ballekere, Keerthipriyan E, M Priya and Ashwani Kumar Soni, appeared for the victim.Senior Advocate R Basant and advocate John Mathew appeared for the accused advocates.Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, Advocate-on-Record Harshad V Hameed, advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad and Shivam Sai, appeared for the State of Kerala..[Read Order]
