The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to the two Kerala advocates accused of raping their client has sparked controversy. Despite criticizing the High Court for granting anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to grant bail since the accused were already in custody
NEW DELHI: On Monday (13th 13), The Supreme Court granted bail to two Kerala advocates who were accused of raping their client. The Bench led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
The Court, while acknowledging the dominant position held by the accused as lawyers, criticized the High Court for granting anticipatory bail to them. The advocates are currently in custody, and the Court deemed it appropriate to grant them bail.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Rejects Continued Court Monitoring in Dabholkar Case
The Supreme Court imposed certain conditions on the release of the accused advocates. They are strictly prohibited from communicating with the victim or any other witnesses associated with the case. The Trial court has the authority to impose additional bail conditions as deemed necessary after consulting with the Public Prosecutor.
“The Court found that the respondents, who are lawyers and held a dominant position relative to the victim, were erroneously granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 18th October 2023. Mr. Basant, the learned senior counsel, countered by stating that the respondents had been taken into custody on 6th May 2024 and are currently incarcerated. Representing the State of Kerala, Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned counsel, informed the Court that the investigation is ongoing. Considering these circumstances, particularly the recent arrest of the respondents, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to both accused.”
Background
On December 1, the Supreme Court stayed the Kerala High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to the two lawyers. The survivor/victim had challenged the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused through a plea filed in the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate V Chitambresh represented the survivor and argued that the High Court’s anticipatory bail order was flawed. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument but decided to grant bail due to the advocates being in custody.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Hold Back Madras High Court’s Land Lease Acquisition Proceedings
The prosecution alleges that the two practicing lawyers sexually abused their client after she sought legal assistance for her divorce case. It is claimed that one of the advocates invited her to a hotel, spiked her drink, and sexually assaulted her. The abuse allegedly continued when she was asked to visit Thallasery, where the second lawyer also abused her. Additionally, the first lawyer is accused of recording nude pictures and videos of the victim on his mobile phone.
Representing the survivor are Advocate-on-Record Jogy Scaria and a team of other advocates. Senior Advocate R Basant and Advocate-on-Record John Mathew are representing the accused lawyers, while Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, Advocate-on-Record Harshad V Hameed, and their team are representing the State of Kerala.
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).
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Clarifies: “SC Has No Power of Superintendence Over High Courts”
The defense further asserts that the survivor herself stated to the police commissioner that any relationship between her and the accused was consensual and that she did not wish to pursue the complaint.
The accused lawyers denied the allegations, asserting that the complaint was filed in retaliation after the survivor failed to receive adequate compensation in her divorce case. They argued that she was also dissatisfied with their inability to fulfill promises of financial aid for her child’s education and the purchase of a house. However, they did transfer Rs 3 lakh to the survivor based on the advice of their friends and relatives.
It appears that the case is complex, involving conflicting statements and serious allegations.
Case Title: XXX v. MJ Johnson and Others.
