Kerala HC denies anticipatory bail to expelled Palakkad Congress councillor in rape case
The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to expelled councillor Prashob M A, accused of raping a Dalit woman under false employment promises, upholding a lower court's decision.
The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to expelled councillor Prashob M A, accused of raping a Dalit woman under false employment promises, upholding a lower court's decision.
The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to expelled councillor Prashob M A, accused of raping a Dalit woman under false employment promises, upholding a lower court's decision.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to expelled Congress municipal councillor from Palakkad, Prashob M A, in connection with the rape of a Dalit woman by promising her employment.
Palakkad Town South Police booked the former councillor under sections of rape, sexual exploitation on false promise, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A Special SC/ST court had earlier rejected his anticipatory bail plea, observing that a prima facie case had been made out against him. The trial court had dismissed his pre-arrest bail application on that basis. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order. Justice A Badharudeen dismissed Prashob's appeal in the case.
According to the prosecution, Prashob, though married, maintained a relationship with the complainant, a Dalit woman, for over one and a half years. He is alleged to have repeatedly had sexual relations with her on the promise of a job and lifelong support. It is also alleged that the woman became pregnant during the relationship and that he later intimidated and abused her after the relationship became public. After the trial court rejected his anticipatory bail plea in April, he approached the High Court seeking relief.
In his plea, Prashob argued that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they only indicated a consensual relationship. He further contended that the SC/ST Act provisions would not apply, and therefore, the bar on anticipatory bail in such cases would not be attracted. His counsel also argued that the Special Court had not recorded any prima facie finding of rape and had based its decision only on the SC/ST Act charges.
Opposing the plea, the complainant’s counsel said she had met Prashob after his father, who ran a tea shop, misbehaved with her. She alleged that Prashob later convinced her not to file a complaint, kept in constant contact, and lured her into a sexual relationship by promising her a good job.
Prashob was represented by Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S Ajithkumar, along with advocates Sreejith S Nair, Satheesh Mohanan, and Mahima.
(With Bar and Bench inputs)