Victim Was Subjected To Rape After She Fell Semi-Conscious: Kerala HC Denies Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act

Justice A. Badharudeen observed, "In this case the specific case of the defacto complainant is that she was subjected to rape after giving her a cake and a bottle of water by the accused and later she felt that her eye sight was diminishing and when she was at a semi conscious stage. In such a case, it cannot be held that the overt act alleged by the defactocomplainant is one arose out of consent."

The Bench reiterated the Supreme Court decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India & Ors, AIR 2020 SC 1036 for stating that in cases where prima facie case was not made out, there was no bar in giving anticipatory bail; and if a prima facie case made out under the Act, giving anticipatory bail was barred.

In this case, the appeal was filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, challenging the order dismissed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Special Court, Ernakulam. The appellant is the sole accused, facing charges under IPC sections 354(A)(1)(i), 506, 376(2)(n), and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, relating to sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, and rape of a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.

Advocate S. Rajeev appeared for the Appellant and Advocate M P Prasanth (PP) appeared for the Respondents.

The prosecution claimed that the accused committed the rape after giving the victim a liquid at a specific location on November 18, 2022. The victim also alleged that the accused threatened and raped her multiple times after the initial incident.

The defense contended that the victim and the accused were involved in a love affair while studying at a college, but their relationship soured, leading the victim to falsely accuse the accused of rape. The victim, as the defacto complainant, was issued a notice to appear before the court to provide her version of events, but she did not show up.

In considering whether to grant anticipatory bail to the accused, the Court referred to previous judgments and specific sections of the SC/ST Act relevant to such cases. The Court emphasized that if there is a prima facie case based on the prosecution's materials indicating the commission of offenses under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

“In this case the specific case of the defacto complainant is that she was subjected to rape after giving her a cake and a bottle of water by the accused and later she felt that her eye sight was diminishing and when she was at a semi conscious stage. In such a case, it cannot be held that the overt act alleged by the defacto complainant is one arose out of consent.”

The Court concluded that the allegations made by the defacto complainant have a prima facie basis, and therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the accused. It pointed out that the telephonic conversations between the victim and the accused indicate a strained relationship, but the occurrence of sexual abuse as alleged by the victim could have been foreseen.

“the prosecution allegations are well made out prima facie and as such anticipatory bail cannot be granted in view of the specific bar under Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Deepak K. Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order