Denial of Anticipatory Bail by Kerala High Court
In a recent development, the Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Prashob M.A., a former Congress municipal councillor from Palakkad accused of rape. The court’s decision follows allegations that Prashob exploited a Dalit woman by promising her employment in return for sexual favors. This case falls under the purview of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Background of the Case
Prashob M.A., despite being married, allegedly maintained a clandestine relationship with the complainant, a Dalit woman, for more than 18 months. The accusations state that he engaged in repeated sexual acts with her, under the pretense of offering a job and lifelong support. Further complications arose when the woman reportedly became pregnant, leading to allegations of intimidation and abuse once their relationship became public knowledge.
Legal Proceedings and Court’s Ruling
The criminal charges against Prashob were registered at the Palakkad Town South Police Station. He was charged with rape, sexual exploitation under false pretenses, and criminal intimidation according to the BNS, alongside charges under the SC/ST Act. A Special SC/ST court initially rejected his anticipatory bail application, highlighting a prima facie case against him.
Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, dismissing Prashob’s appeal for relief. Prashob’s defense argued that the relationship was consensual and that the charges did not meet the statutory criteria for the alleged offenses under the SC/ST Act. They contended that the Special Court’s decision was based solely on the prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, without any substantiation of the rape allegations.
Arguments and Counterarguments
Representing Prashob, Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, along with advocates Sreejith S. Nair, Satheesh Mohanan, and Mahima, argued for the dismissal of the charges. However, the complainant’s counsel firmly opposed any relief, recounting how Prashob’s father initially misbehaved with her, leading Prashob to persuade her against filing a complaint. She alleged that Prashob maintained communication with her and enticed her into a sexual relationship under false promises.
More Read
The High Court’s decision underscores the legal protections afforded under the SC/ST Act and reflects the judiciary’s cautious approach towards cases involving allegations of exploitation and intimidation of marginalized individuals.
