BREAKING| Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Actor-Producer Vijay Babu In Rape Case Subject To Conditions
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the anticipatory bail plea with a condition that limited custody of the actor shall be available to the investigating officer. The following conditions have also...
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu's plea in the case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the anticipatory bail plea with a condition that limited custody of the actor shall be available to the investigating officer.
The following conditions have also been imposed on the actor:
- The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on June 27 at 9 am for interrogation.
- The petitioner can be interrogated for the next seven days, i.e, from 27/6 to 3/7 from 9 am to 7 pm every day.
- The petitioner shall be deemed to be under custody during the aforesaid period for facilitating requirements of the investigation
- If Investigating Officer intends to arrest the petitioner, then he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 5 lakhs with two solvent sureties each with the like sum.
- The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
- The petitioner shall not call or interact with the victim or any of the witnesses.
- The petitioner shall not indulge in any form of attack through social media or other modes against the victim or her family.
- The petitioner shall not leave the state of Kerala without prior permission of the jurisdictional court and shall co-operate with the investigation
- The petitioner shall not commit any other offence while he is on bail.
- Though the petitioner's passport has been impounded, he shall surrender his passport as and when he is issued with a fresh one or if the impounding is cancelled.
The Court had heard the case at length last week, analysing the alleged WhatsApp and Instagram messages between the actor and the complainant in detail to ascertain the relationship between the duo. While there were submissions suspecting the authenticity of the messages produced before the Court, the accused appearing through Advocate S. Rajeev had asserted that no tampering had been done in the same.
Similarly, while the prosecution asserted that it was a case of sexual assault, the actor had claimed that it was a consensual act. The actor also added that this case was a move orchestrated by the complainant to avenge his refusal of her request to grant her more movie roles. Advocate R Rajesh appearing for the complainant had denied these claims and opposed the anticipatory bail plea.
On May 31st, the the Court had granted him interim pre-arrest bail noting that merely because he was outside the country, the bail application would not become non-non-maintainable. This was extended by the Judge upon being informed that Vijay Babu had returned to India and had appeared before the Police for interrogation. The actor was, however, directed to cooperate with the investigation and to refrain from tampering with the probe.
The Court had part-heard the matter earlier, and the Bureau of Immigration had also filed an application seeking to be impleaded into the case. The Judge had also urged the prosecution to give some time to the actor to return to India and submit himself before the Court and that this was the only reasonable way to get justice for the victim in the case. It had also orally directed the actor to make himself available to the jurisdiction of the court.
As per the de facto complainant, the actor 'gained her trust by being friendly and advising her' when she was a newcomer in the industry. She added that he sexually exploited her under the guise of being a 'saviour' to her when it came to personal and professional issues.
A complaint was thereby registered against him with the Ernakulam police. Meanwhile, the actor hosted a Facebook Live and denied all allegations raised against him. However, during this live streaming, he revealed the survivor's name which led to further backlash. A separate case has been registered under IPC Section 228A (disclosure of the identity of the victim in certain offences) against the actor for revealing her identity on a public platform
In his bail application, he has argued that the de facto complainant is merely trying to blackmail him by filing this false case. He added that while the survivor may be free to raise allegations against anyone, the statutory authorities are duty-bound to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegation before tarnishing or defaming an individual based on a complaint which could not be substantiated.
Case Title: Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 292