Digital Desk: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a petition from the Kerala government appealing the anticipatory relief given by the Kerala high court to actor/producer Vijay Babu in a case involving an alleged rape last month.
The high court's June 22
ruling was challenged by the complainant, a 25-year-old Malayalam actor who
accused Vijay Babu of sexually assaulting her. She said that every day he is
out of custody puts her and other prosecution witnesses in danger.
On a combined statement
from senior attorneys Jaideep Gupta for the state and Raghenth Basant for the
complainant, a vacation bench of justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari of
the Supreme Court directed the case to be listed for hearing on Wednesday.
The accused Malayalam actor Vijay
Babu was ordered by the high court to turn himself in on June 27 and was given
till July 3 to answer any questions. Gupta stated, "This is a man who
initially fled to Dubai and then to Georgia, returning only after having his
passport seized by local officials. The pressing issue is that we cannot
continue questioning him until this order is overturned.
Speaking on behalf of
the complaint, Basant said, "He came on Facebook Live and gave the world
my name. His presence outdoors poses a threat to me every day.
The bench decided to
list the two petitions urgently in light of the seriousness of the allegations.
Before granting
pre-arrest bail to the accused, the high court order heard arguments from the
state and the complainant. The June 22 order came to this conclusion by noting
that the victim was aware of the accused's marriage and that, as long as it
persisted, there was no chance of a lawful marriage with the complainant.
The starlet said in her
police report that the accused sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions
after the initial incident on March 16 of this year. When she refused his
attempts, she was once physically tortured. On April 22, the police filed a
first information report (FIR) against Vijay Babu, alleging rape in violation
of IPC Section 376, criminal intimidation in violation of IPC Section 506, and
inflicting harm (IPC Section 323). The accused escaped to Dubai soon after the
FIR was filed.
The prosecution claims
that the accused's behaviour was improper because he published the survivor's
name on Facebook Live on April 26 and fled to Georgia to avoid capture because
India does not have an extradition agreement with this nation. The accused is
facing trial in a different case for revealing the survivor's identify. He didn't
enter the nation until his passport was seized, according to the state. The
police discovered that the history of communications between the accused and
the complainant from March 16 to March 31 had been wiped from the accused's
mobile phones.
The accused, however,
rejected the rape charge and asserted that he and the complainant were having a
consensual relationship. He claims that the complainant filed a rape accusation
after learning that another actress had been cast in her part in a forthcoming
film produced by the defendant.
Granting anticipatory bail to the accused would be fatal to the
current case's ability to be tried, the complainant warned the highest court.
She claimed in her petition that if the contested judgement is upheld,
"every wealthy and powerful person, such as respondent (Vijay Babu),
against whom a FIR is registered for a serious, non-bailable offence, will
immediately flee the country and return only after he gets an order of
ad-interim anticipatory bail."
In their appeal, the Kerala government also questioned whether it was appropriate to grant protection to a suspect who fled the country and then later requested anticipatory bail as a prerequisite to cooperating with an investigation.
Continue Reading
