'Shame To The Profession': Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Booked For Minor's Rape

The Kerala High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a lawyer who allegedly committed rape on a minor girl. The Court observed that prima facie case was made out against the lawyer and that his bail application cannot be entertained due to bar under Section 482 (4) of the BNSS.Section 482(4) BNSS bars grant of bail to a person booked under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 65 BNS relates to rape of women under age of 12 years. Section 70(2) BNS penalises gang rape of minor.Justice P V Kunhikrishnan on perusing case diary, report submitted by the Victim Rights Centre of KeLSA and counselling report observed thus: “…if the facts narrated by the prosecution and the victim are correct, it is unfortunate because the petitioner is from a noble profession. After going through the statement of the victim (if it is correct), a human being cannot complete reading it without tears in their eyes because the allegation is that the petitioner abused a minor girl, without her consent. The allegation is that the petitioner, who is a lawyer gave alcohol to the victim and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual intercourse with a minor girl. If the facts are correct, it is a shame to the profession. Such a person is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court.”The Petitioner is alleged to have raped a minor girl studying in 9th standard. The allegation is that the Petitioner who was a friend of the minor girl's aunt compelled her to consume alcohol when they were staying in a hotel. It is alleged that the Petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on that day. Subsequently, the minor disclosed details to her aunt who said that the Petitioner has videos and photos with him. It is alleged that thereafter the Petitioner sexually abused the victim several times with the knowledge of the aunt.Crime is registered against the Petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 377, 506 of the IPC, Sections 75, 76 Juvenile (Care and Protection) Act and Sections 4(2), 3(a)(b), 6, 5(l)(p)(i), 7, 8, 9(l)(p), 10, 11(v), 12, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act.The Counsel for Petitioner submitted that this was a false case. It was also stated that he is a lawyer practising in the High Court for several years and bail rejection would tarnish his reputation. It was submitted that the victim has earlier alleged rape against another boy, which resulted in acquittal when the victim turned hostile. On the other hand, Public Prosecutor submitted that the other case was also connected to this case and Petitioner acted as a mediator for settlement. It was submitted that there is a threat to the victim's life and if bail application is allowed then the Petitioner will influence the victim. The Public Prosecutor relying upon Section 482 (4) of BNSS stated that there is a bar in granting anticipatory bail in cases involving rape against minors. Relying upon various precedents, the Court noted that the bar under Section 482(4) of the BNSS is not absolute. Court added “…if the prosecution case is patently false or motivated and no prima facie material exists warranting the arrest of the accused, the Bar under Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C/ 482(4) of BNSS can be relaxed in appropriate cases.”The Court observed that the minor girl has disclosed in the reports that it was extremely challenging for an adolescent girl from a dysfunctional family with no guidance to resist the frequent advances of the Petitioner. The Court noted that the victim submitted that she was entirely dependent on her aunt who was leading a hyper sexual lifestyle. The Court further noted that the victim has not received any money from the Petitioner or her aunt. The Court also took note of the fact that the victim was compelled by the Petitioner and others to give statement against another boy and that he has never abused her. The Court on going through the case dairy and reports said, “I am of the considered opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and it can be stated that it has progressed beyond the stage of prima facie.”As such, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, Advocates S.Rajeev, V.Vinay, M.S.Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R. K.S.Kiran KrishnanCounsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor K A Noushad, Advocate Parvathi A Menon for KeLSACase Title: Noushad v State of Kerala Case No: BAIL APPL. NO. 1777 OF 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 201Click here to read/download the Order

'Shame To The Profession': Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Booked For Minor's Rape

Tellmy Jolly

Tags