Lawyer’s Rape Case: Kerala HC Questions Bail, Seeks State Response

Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday, sought the State government’s stand on a plea seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to a lawyer accused of rape under the false pretext of marriage.

The accused, Rahib KY, was granted pre-arrest bail by a trial court on May 17, which ruled the relationship as consensual.

Court Issues Notice Amid Serious Allegations

Justice G Girish issued notice to the State after the complainant, a 39-year-old woman advocate from Ernakulam, challenged the bail order. She alleged that Rahib repeatedly sexually assaulted her since July 2023, manipulated her into an abortion in February 2024, and later abandoned her after stealing her valuables, including gold and property documents.

“The Hon’ble court observed that the petitioner and 2nd respondent resided together in the house where the house break and theft occurred… The trial court failed to observe that the accused abandoned her on 26.03.2025 and later committed theft on 09.04.2025,” the plea stated.

Complainant’s Claims vs. Accused’s Defense

The survivor argued that Rahib never intended to marry her and only initiated marriage registration to coerce her into terminating the pregnancy. She also accused him of being aware of her age and divorcee status, contrary to his claim in court.

The trial court had granted bail, accepting the accused’s argument that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant’s non-disclosure of her marital status prevented him from fulfilling the marriage promise. However, the High Court will now examine whether the lower court overlooked critical evidence, including theft allegations.

Legal Battle Intensifies

Advocate Raghul Sudheesh, representing the complainant, along with a team of lawyers, pressed for bail cancellation, citing prejudicial findings by the trial court. The case highlights concerns over judicial scrutiny in sexual assault cases involving coercive relationships.

This development underscores the judiciary’s role in reassessing bail orders where allegations of deceit, coercion, and financial exploitation are involved.