Kerala HC Seeks State Reply On Plea To Cancel Lawyer’s Anticipatory Bail
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Today, On 26th June, The Kerala High Court has sought a response from the State on a plea to cancel the anticipatory bail of a lawyer accused of rape on the false promise of marriage by a woman advocate from Ernakulam.
The Kerala High Court issued a notice to the State regarding a plea to revoke the anticipatory bail of a lawyer accused of rape under the false promise of marriage by a woman advocate based in Ernakulam.
The complaint was presented before Justice G Girish, who heard the case.
The accused, Rahib KY, had been granted pre-arrest bail by a trial court on May 17, which deemed the situation a consensual relationship.
Also Read: Two Kerala Lawyers Accused of Raping Client: SC Grants Bail
The complainant, a 39-year-old divorcee, alleges that since July 2023, she endured repeated “sexual assaults” under the guise of marriage and was pressured into having an abortion in February 2024. She later found out that Rahib was involved with another woman.
Additionally, she claims that he stole her possessions, including gold, important documents, and property deeds related to a rented home. The two had cohabited for a period.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Investigates ‘Fake Bail’ Order Involving Lawyer and Prisoner
In her plea to cancel the trial court’s decision, she contended that the court overlooked the fact that Rahib never intended to marry her, using the marriage registration process merely as a means to manipulate her into ending her pregnancy.
The accused argued in the trial court that the complainant’s failure to disclose her age and marital status hampered him from fulfilling the marriage promise.
However, she maintains that he was fully aware of both her age and marital history.
She also pointed out that the trial court did not consider the theft of her valuables by the accused.
Also Read: Female Lawyer Assault Case| Kerala Court Grants Bail to Accused Advocate Beyline Das
The plea stated,
“The Hon’ble court observed that the petitioner and 2nd respondent resided together in the house where the house break and theft occurred. The view taken by the Hon’ble trial court is prejudicial and the Hon’ble trial court failed to observe that the 2nd respondent left the company of the petitioner and abandoned her on 26.03.2025 and later came back and committed house break and theft on 09.04.2025,”
Advocate Raghul Sudheesh represented the complainant in this matter.
