_edited.png)
Authored by - Shivam Pandey (Intern at Legal Soch Foundation)
Meta description – Kerala High Court approved an anticipatory bail to the person who was alleged in a rape case after finding the rape was consensual and payment of ₹5,000 was made after the sexual intercourse.
Keywords – Kerala High Court, Anticipatory Bail, Rape Case, Consensual Rape Case.
On Friday, the Kerala High Court approved anticipatory bail for a rape suspect, forming its decision on evidence that shows the woman had received ₹5,000 from the accused person after the alleged rape incident in the matter of Umesh vs. State of Kerala.
Justice Kauser Edappagath took note of a WhatsApp chat that shows the sexual intercourse had been consensual, and after that, a payment of ₹5,000 had been made to her by the accused person.
This decision came from an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused, who was charged under Sections 376 D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution affirms that the accused, along with another man, brought the victim to a Thiruvalla hotel, intoxicated her, engaged in sexual intercourse, recorded explicit videos, and shared them electronically.
The accused's counsel argued that there was no solid evidence linking their client to the alleged crime, justifying their entitlement to bail. Conversely, the prosecution opposed bail, contending that the incident was part of a deliberate criminal scheme by the accused. They believed that releasing the accused on bail at this stage would disrupt the ongoing investigation.
Upon reviewing the First Information Statement (FIS) and WhatsApp screenshots, the High Court concluded that the woman had willfully gone to the hotel, knowing that the accused person and another individual were present. The WhatsApp conversation also shows that the sexual intercourse at the hotel was with the full consent of the victim.
Additionally, the court noted the payment of ₹5,000 to the woman after the incident was made by the accused person to that woman. The Court acknowledged a delay of 12 days in filing the First Information Report (FIR) and determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Based on these factors, the High Court deemed it an appropriate case for granting anticipatory bail to the accused, subject to certain norms, including posting a bond of ₹1 lakh and cooperating with the needless and irrelevant.
The accused was represented by advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, while the state was represented by Public Prosecutor (PP) Sangeetha Raj NR.
Follow us on LinkedIn -
Those interested in reading News, can join this group -