Case Title:
Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Date of Order:
May 31, 2022
Bench:
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Parties:
Vijay Babu (Petitioner) & State of Kerala, Station House Officer, Bureau of Immigration and Ors. (Respondents)
Subject
The anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC was granted to actor Vijay Babu while he was abroad, to apprehend his arrest in the non-bailable offence of sexual exploitation, for which he was alleged by his co-star.
Important provisions
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 228 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Overview
The complainant claimed that the actor Vijay Babu, under the disguise of being her savior in all personal as well as professional issues, gained her trust when she was a newcomer. He eventually became friendly with her and taking the advantage of the situation, he sexually exploited her. As a result, a complaint was filed against him in the Ernakulam Police Station, Kerala, after which, the actor in a Facebook live session denied all the allegations made against him but revealed the name of the survivor which further troubled him. A separate case was registered against him under Section 228 A of IPC for disclosing the identity of the victim on a public platform. The petitioner in the case is said to have deliberately stayed out of the country so that he may escape the investigation and other procedures. However, the petitioner contends that he has apprehension of arrest hence; he sought the anticipatory bail from abroad.
Issues Raised
- Whether or not the anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused that is outside the country?
Arguments advanced by the Petitioner
The petitioner submitted that in an advertisement that he did for the Kerala Police, the complainant was his co-star. He alleged that the complainant used to call and text him frequently seeking better opportunities in the Malayalam film industry. Despite his repeated explanation that he had no role in casting, she tried to be in consistent contact with him. He claimed that she is trying to blackmail him by filing a false case.
He further submitted that while the complainant is free to impose false allegations on him, it is the responsibility of the concerned authorities to find out the truth and take the required actions in order to prevent the defamation of an individual. In the submission made, he mentioned that he has a strong apprehension of arrest as the police is under the pressure from media. The case details leaked on social media even before the FIR and FIS which has created huge pressure on the police. Therefore, he is seeking protection under Section 438 of CrPC from the Hon’ble Court.
Arguments advanced by the Respondent
The Prosecution contended that the petitioner had purposely filed the anticipatory bail application after fleeing from the country, with an intention to remain outside the jurisdiction to evade the investigation.
He further submitted that the petitioner’s presence outside the country does not entitle him to claim anticipatory bail, referring to the cases of Souda Beevi v. Sub. Inspector of Police and Ors. [2011 (4) KLT 52] and S.M. Shaffi v.State of Kerala [2020 (4) KHC 510].
Judgment Analysis
The Hon’ble High Court while referring to the judgment of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State observed that the Apex Court in the matter ruled that the rights to guaranteed to a citizen under Article 21 of the India Constitution can be taken away only by the procedure established by law and Section 438 of CrPC is one of such procedure. Therefore, the courts should refrain from imposing unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438 of CrPC.
The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala therefore, ruled that since the petitioner is willing to submit himself before the Court but is apprehending the imminent arrest in a non-bailable offence, the statute provides for the grant of interim bail. His presence outside the country is not a ground for depriving him of his rights under Section 438 of CrPC. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court, therefore, granted the interim anticipatory bail to him until June 2, 2022.
Conclusion
The media trial has always led the various high-profile cases into a consistent limelight and polarization of public opinion and even the judgments of the High Courts and the Apex Court as well. In the non-bailable offence like sexual assault, rape, murder, etc. it is a right of an individual, provided by the Indian statutes to seek anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala rightly ruled that the mere absence of an individual from the country cannot deprive him of his rights guaranteed by the Indian statutes.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
