The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to two lawyers accused of raping their client when she had approached one of them to seek legal assistance in filing her divorce. Pertinently, while granting bail the bench was of the opinion that there is nothing in law that indicates that anticipatory bail cannot be granted for a serious offence such as rape. The petitioners herein were alleged of the offences under Sections 376, 354, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Gopinath P while allowing the bail application observed, “The argument that the grant of anticipatory bail in a case of this nature will have an impact on the society and will send a wrong message to the public at large does not appeal to this court as “in this country we do not administer justice by plebiscite” [Judge Hiller B. Zobel at the trial of the Nanny, Louise Woodward, 1998]”.

The Court while granting bail also took note of the fact that complaint was not filed until 2023, however the victim-client (also the de facto complainant) had alleged that she was abused right from the beginning since 2021 when she had approached them.

Advocate S. Rajeev appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Luke J Chirayil appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the victim-client (also the de facto complainant) had contended that she was sexually abused by the petitioner-lawyer, when she had approached him to seek legal assistance in filing her divorce. However, the lawyer sexually assaulted her by spiking her drink in a hotel room. Pursuant to which the lawyer had promised to buy her a house, to take care of her just as his wife and also to take care of her children.

Subsequently, as per the averments the petitioner continued to sexually abuse her on several occasions and further alleged that she was asked to come to Tellicherry where the 2nd petitioner who is a colleague of the 1st petitioner also sexually abused her where even pictures and videos were recorded.

However, the petitioners contended that the complainant was aggrieved by the fact that she had not received sufficient compensation in her divorce claim and that the petitioners did not fulfil any of the promises that they had made to her. Further that they had even settled the matter when they transferred 3 Lakhs to her account pursuant to which she had stated that any relationship between her and the petitioners was purely consensual and she does not wish to prosecute the complaint in any manner.

The State while opposing the bail had argued that the petitioners are practising Advocates with a fairly successful practice and thus wields considerable influence in the Police Department, and if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail there is every chance that the de facto complainant / victim will be influenced and intimidated.

Therefore, the court noted that, “The allegations against the petitioners are no doubt serious. However, I must take note of the fact that even according to the de facto complainant-victim, she had first approached the 1st petitioner seeking his professional help in the year 2021. A cumulative reading of all the complaints preferred by the de facto complainant/victim would indicate that she was abused right from the time she had first approached the 1st petitioner seeking his professional help. However, the first complaint seems to have been filed only on 30-06-2023. While this itself may not be fatal to the prosecution case, it lends credence to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de facto complainant / victim had actually filed a complaint being aggrieved by the fact that she had not received sufficient compensation in the proceedings before the Family Court”.

Cause Title: M J Johnson v. State Of Kerala

Click here to read/download the Order





Justice Gopinath P

Agatha Shukla