- In Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr., the Kerala High Court granted an interim anticipatory bail to the accused. The Court observed that being outside the country is not an impediment for the accused in seeking an anticipatory bail.
- The case came to being on the basis of a #MeToo revelation made by a new-comer actress, where she accused producer Vijay Babu of taking sexual advantages from her under the guise of being a ‘saviour’ and getting her acting roles. The victim is also the de-facto complainant in this case.
- Subsequently, a complaint was registered against the accused in the Ernakulam Police station. After the case came to light, the police has issued a lookout notice against him as he has left the country and is currently residing in Dubai. The interim bail application was filed by the counsel of the accused out of fear of getting arrested on his return at the airport.
- Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while granting an interim protection from arrest clarified that once the accused is given protection, he will come back to India and the investigation will be carried out to serve justice.
- He further observed that the essential requirement of every investigation is that the accused must be in its control for the purpose of carrying out an effective and fair investigation. It augurs well, in the interest of the investigation as well as the victim, that the accused submits himself to the jurisdiction of the investigating team in the interest of the victim.
- The Additional Director General Of Prosecution contended that the accused filed the bail application after leaving the country and it is clear from his conduct that he wants to remain outside the jurisdiction of the investigation.
- The prosecution also relied on two judgements; Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police & Ors [2011 (4) KLT 52] and S.M.Shaffi v. State of Kerala [2020 (4) KHC 510], whereby it was held that the petitioner’s presence outside the country disentitle him to maintain an anticipatory bail application.
- On Tuesday, the prosecution prayed for the dismissal of the said application on the grounds that the offence committed by the accused is grave and that he is trying to abscond from the hands of justice.
- In the bail application of the accused, it was contended that the de facto complainant (victim) is trying to blackmail him by filing a false case. He also alleged that she used to call him at odd hours asking for more opportunities in the film industry.
- Further, the application urged the Court to find out the truth in the statement of the de facto complainant and come to a rightful conclusion so as to avoid tarnishing and defaming an innocent individual.
- The accused also claimed that he has saved all the messages sent by the de facto complainant to him, including all the photos and videos that he is willing to submit to the Court for proper investigation.
- The Court dismissed the contentions raised by the prosecution and notes that in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors v. State, the Supreme Court held that every individual is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and can only be deprived of it by the procedure established by law. Section 438 of CrPC which deals with the anticipatory bail application is one such procedure and Courts should not put unnecessary restriction on its scope.
- In this light, the Court granted an interim protection from arrest to the accused until 2nd June 2022.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha Nautiyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
