Actor-Producer Vijay Babu Granted Conditional Bail In Rape Case: Kerala HC

D.D: 22-JUNE 2022

Wednesday, the Kerala High Court granted conditional pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu in a case where an actress accused him of sexually exploiting he

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted the anticipatory bail motion under the condition that the investigating officer shall have limited access to the defendant.

Additionally, the following conditions have been placed on the act

1. The petitioner must surrender to the Investigating Officer for questioning on June 27 at 9:00 a.m.
2. The petitioner may be questioned for the next seven days, from June 27 to July 3, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily.
3. The petitioner shall be presumed to be detained during the aforementioned period to facilitate the investigation.
4. If the Investigating Officer intends to arrest the petitioner, he will be released on bail upon execution of a Rs. 5 lakh bail bond with two solvent sureties each posting the same amount.
5. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer when requested to do so.
6. The petitioner is prohibited from contacting or interacting with the victim or any witnesses.
7. The petitioner is prohibited from engaging in any form of online or offline attack against the victim or her family.
8. The petitioner is prohibited from leaving the state of Kerala without the prior permission of the competent court and is required to cooperate with the investigation.

The petitioner may not commit any additional offences while on bail.

Even though the petitioner's passport has been impounded, he must return it as soon as he is issued a new one or if the impoundment is lifted.

Last week, the Court heard the case in detail, analysing the alleged WhatsApp and Instagram messages between the actor and the complainant to determine their relationship. While there were arguments questioning the authenticity of the messages presented to the court, the accused, represented by attorney S. Rajeev, asserted that they had not been altered.

Similarly, while the prosecution claimed it was a case of sexual assault, the actor claimed it was an act of consent. The actor also stated that the complainant orchestrated this lawsuit in retaliation for his refusal to grant her more film roles. The complainant's attorney, R Rajesh, denied these claims and opposed the anticipatory bail motion.

The court granted him interim pre-arrest bail on the 31st of May, noting that his absence from the country did not render the bail application inadmissible. The judge extended this after learning that Vijay Babu had returned to India and appeared before the police for questioning. However, the actor was instructed to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from interfering with the investigation.

The Court had previously heard a portion of the case, and the Bureau of Immigration had also filed a motion to be impleaded. The judge had also urged the prosecution to allow the actor time to return to India and appear before the court, stating that this was the only reasonable way to obtain justice for the victim. It had also verbally instructed the actor to submit himself to the court's jurisdiction.

As a newcomer to the industry, the actor, according to the de facto complainant, "earned her trust by being friendly and offering advice." She added that he exploited her sexually under the guise of being her "saviour" in personal and professional matters.

Thus, a report was filed against him with the Ernakulam police. Meanwhile, the actor denied all allegations made against him during a Facebook Live broadcast. However, during this live broadcast, he revealed the survivor's name, resulting in additional criticism. The actor has been charged separately under IPC Section 228A (disclosure of the victim's identity in certain offences) for revealing her identity on a public platform.

In his bail application, he argued that the de facto complainant filed this false case in an attempt to blackmail him. He added that while the survivor is free to make allegations against anyone, the statutory authorities are obligated to determine the veracity of the allegation before tarnishing or defaming a person based on an unsubstantiated complaint.

Vijay Babu

versus.

State of Kerala & Anr.