Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the anticipatory bail allowed by the Kerala High Court to cinema artist cum producer Vijay Babu in a rape case registered against him by an actress, however, modified the bail conditions.

A bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari modified the bail order allowing the investigation to be conducted even after July 3, 2022 stating that "We make it clear that the respondent may be interrogated beyond July 3, 2022, if necessary."

The bench was hearing the petitions filed by the Kerala Government and the survivor opposing anticipatory bail granted by the Kerala High Court to actor-cum-producer Vijay Babu in an alleged rape case.

The bench has further directed the accused to not post anything on social media in relation to the case.

Advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the State submitted before the bench that the matter pertains to a challenge to the anticipatory bail allowed and restricting the time period for interrogation beyond July 3.

Gupta further submitted that Babu is a very influential person in the movie industry, thus the argument of destroying the evidence is undiluted, and he has deleted the WhatsApp chats.

To which Justice Banerjee said, "How can someone delete the messages, he can delete it from his mobile phone but it'll remain." Additionally, can someone in Indian law be pressurized to submit evidence against himself, Justice Banerjee added.

Senior Advocate R Basant appearing for the victim submitted, "This Girl, the victim is in her early 20s, just entered the acting industry, and he is a married man in his 40s, he was a producer, very influential. He is in a position of dominance, he calls her to have a professional discussion and then she was raped."

Explaining the nature of the allegations, Basant submitted that Babu went to Dubai, and when a red corner notice was issued he went to Georgia which doesn't have an extradition treaty with India. 

Basant further alleged that "Victim's name is not to be revealed and to pressurize the victim he goes Facebook live and reveals my name. He says I know I cannot reveal the name but I will reveal the name, he tried to coerce the victim to silence."

Basant further informed the bench that the High Court has not considered that the victim is against a person in a position of dominance.

"There cannot be a better case which attracts your Lordship's interference," Basant added. Whereas, the bench held that the court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. 

However, the bench further made it clear that the other terms and conditions under which the anticipatory bail has been granted shall be complied with.

Later, Luthra made some allegations against the victim before the court to be considered stating that this will come up one day or the other (the statement made by Luthra has been withheld).

To which, the counsel appearing for the victim objected stating, "Please don't make unverified alligations, this is being reported, I'll become a laughing stock. I'm a rape victim here, not accused."

However, the bench said that the statement made by Luthra is not being recorded. Furthermore, the bench directed Babu not to put up any social media post in relation to the present case.

Background

As per the allegations, Babu had committed rape on the victim, twice during her menstrual periods and on other occasions, causing physical injuries and without her consent.

Apprehending arrest in a non-bailable offence, Babu had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C) submitting that the ingredients of the offences were not made out and hence his liberty ought not to be curtailed, unless and until he is found guilty in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Babu had denied the allegation of rape as wholly false and pleaded that the accusations were only a machination of the victim who was upset on getting information that another actress was decided to be cast as a heroine by the director of a new movie project proposed to be produced by Babu.

He had further pleaded that evidence of the nature of relationship between him and the actress was available in plenty, on the mobile phones through WhatsApp messages and Instagram chats and other documents.

Vijay Babu had further alleged that, by quirky conduct, a consensual relationship was being projected as rape.

Earlier, the High Court while granting relief to Babu ordered that Babu can be interrogated for the next seven days, i.e., from June 27 till July 3, 2022 from 09.00 AM till 06.00 PM every day, if required.

Babu had also been asked to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

Case Title: XXX Vs. Vijay Babu & Ors.