The Kerala High Court refused to grant relief to a lawyer accused of raping a minor, strongly condemning the act. The court stated that if the allegations are true, it is a disgrace to the legal profession. It also ruled that such an individual does not deserve any special consideration. The case has sparked serious discussions on ethics in the legal field.
The Kerala High Court denied the anticipatory bail request of a 58-year-old lawyer accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl after forcing her to consume alcohol.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan described the situation as unfortunate, emphasizing that such conduct tarnishes the legal profession.
The single-judge remarked,
“If the facts presented by the prosecution and the victim are accurate, it is unfortunate because the petitioner hails from a noble profession. After reviewing the victim’s statement (assuming it is correct), one cannot read it without tears, as the allegation is that the petitioner abused a minor girl without her consent. The accusation claims that the petitioner, who is a lawyer, provided alcohol to the victim and subsequently committed penetrative sexual intercourse with her. If these facts are true, it is a disgrace to the profession. Such an individual is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court. I firmly believe that the petitioner is not eligible for anticipatory bail,”
The accused, Noushad, a lawyer practicing at the Kerala High Court, was charged by the police last year.
According to the victim’s statement, in 2022, while she was in the 9th grade, Noushad, a family acquaintance, invited her and her aunt to a hotel room in Kozhenchery. He allegedly coerced her into consuming alcohol against her will, which led to her becoming disoriented.
Once her aunt left the room, the lawyer reportedly locked the door and raped her, disregarding her protests and clear distress. The victim claimed that the lawyer continued to abuse her over time, with her aunt being aware of the situation.
In his defense, Noushad, represented by Senior Counsel P Vijayabhanu, contended that the allegations were fabricated to damage his reputation. He argued that the victim and her family had previously lodged similar complaints for financial gain.
The court specifically informed about the acquittal of another accused in a case based on the same victim’s complaint.
The public prosecutor contended that the evidence presented clearly demonstrated the accused’s involvement in the crime. It was also argued that granting bail would endanger the victim’s safety.
After a comprehensive review of the case diary and the reports submitted by Advocate Parvathi A Menon, the Project Coordinator of the Victim Rights Centre (VRC) under KeLSA, the Court concluded that a prima facie case had been established against the accused.
Furthermore, the Court recognized a legal barrier to considering the anticipatory bail plea, as the victim is a minor.
The Court stated,
“I do not wish to discuss the merits of the case further, but it suffices to say that this bail application cannot be entertained due to the prohibition under section 482(4) BNSS.”
Additionally, the Court noted that the victim is now concentrating on her education, aspiring to become a forensic surgeon.
The judge remarked while denying relief to the accused,
“The entire society stands with her, hoping she achieves her dream,”
The accused lawyer was represented by Senior Counsel P Vijayabhanu, alongside advocates S Rajeev, VV Vinay, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, and KS Kiran Krishnan.
The State and the victim were represented by Senior Public Prosecutor KA Noushad, with Advocate Parvathi A Menon representing the Victim Rights Centre (VRC), KeLSA.
Case Title: Noushad v State of Kerala & anr]
Read Attachment