Kerala High Court grants bail to central government panel counsel accused of raping another lawyer

The Kerala High Court on Friday granted bail to advocate Navaneeth N Nath, a Central Government panel counsel in Kerala, who was arrested in connection with a sexual abuse complaint made against him by a colleague, another lawyer. [Navaneeth N Nath v State of Kerala].Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted bail subject to some conditions noting that even though the offences alleged are of a serious nature, the petitioner is not likely to flee from justice and has no criminal antecedents..The allegation against Nath was that he had been in a relationship with his colleague, another lawyer, for over four years but in the end, he decided to marry another woman.When the complainant learnt of this and met Nath's fiance at a hotel, she allegedly tried to commit suicide by slitting her veins. While speaking to the police after the incident, the woman recounted her story, leading to his arrest..During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ramesh Chander, appearing for Nath, argued that the petitioner had every intention of marrying her and that the sexual relationship between them, which subsisted for many years, was absolutely consensual and loving.Chander said that the couple were aware from the beginning that their relationship may face roadblocks due to the fact that they belong to different faiths but the complainant, knowingly took her chances and continued in the relationship.However, advocate John S Ralph, appearing for the de-facto complainant, refuted these contentions and submitted that their sexual relationship was predicated on an absolute, but now proven false, promise to marry.He pointed out that any lack of information in the FIS can be attributed to the fact that the complainant was in the ICU when the statement was taken.Public Prosecutor KA Noushad also opposed grant of bail and stated that whatever consent was obtained was based on a misconception of facts and that the offence of rape will be attracted in this case..Justice Thomas had opined at the hearing that since the case arose between a couple who had been in a relationship for over 4 years, the prosecution case may be affected by the Supreme Court decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v The State Of Maharashtra."What the Supreme Court held in Pramod's case is that the long period of a relationship is indicative of an absence obtaining consent by promising to marry. In your(complainant) FIS (first information statement), no where is it indicated that you indulged in sex only with the belief that he is going to marry," the judge remarked.