SC Bans Anticipatory Bail Of Two Lawyers For Raping Client: Details Here

The Supreme Court bans anticipatory bail of two lawyers accused of raping their client. The bail was granted by Kerala High Court against the complaint of the client. The client had approached the two lawyers for the case of divorce and gaining fair compensation from her husband. The complainant has now filed a plea before SC challenging the pre-arrest bail of the lawyers. A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol has sought the response of the Kerala government and the accused in the same.

As per the report, Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh with advocates Jogy Scaria, C Govind Venugopal, Beena Victor, Vivek Guruprasad Ballekere, and Priya M represented the complainant before the Supreme Court.

On October 10, 2023, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the two lawyers with a bail bond of Rs 50,000 on each. The court acknowledged the fact that the complainant had filed the rape charges because she was aggrieved for not being granted sufficient compensation in the divorce proceedings. 

The High Court judge, Gopinath P, recognised the fact that the client had filed the case of sexual abuse only in June 2023 even though she had been assaulted since 2021, the time when she approached one of the lawyers for the divorce case. 

All about the complaint

According to the complaint of the client, one of the lawyers had allegedly invited her to a hotel where he sexually abused her after spiking her drink. Later, as the complainant alleged, the lawyer offered to buy her a house and take care of her children. As the abuse continued, one day the complainant was invited to Tellicherry where the second lawyer abused her. The first lawyer allegedly took nude photos and videos of her on his mobile phone. 

The two lawyers were booked under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention). 

The lawyers denied the accusation

However, the lawyers denied the accusations. They said that the client registered a case because they failed to gain her sufficient compensation in divorce and did not offer financial aid to buy her a house or educate her children as promised. They also alleged that the complainant had stated the Kozhikode Police Commissioner on July 3, 2023 that any relationship she shared with the lawyers was consensual.