KOCHI: “Having regard to the gravity of the crime alleged, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the possibility of them tampering with the evidence and obstructing the course of justice, the petitioners are not entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail,” the court held.
The court also directed the accused to surrender before the court. Senior Government Pleader Suman Chakravarthy submitted the petitioners are clergymen and they are in a position of command over the survivor, a parishioner. According to the prosecution, the contention of the petitioners that it was consensual sex is false.
The victim had denied the consent was unequivocal or voluntary. There is no reason to doubt her version at this stage, the prosecution said. The statement of the victim has been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and electronic evidence in the form of CDRs and Chat transcripts.
The prosecution also submitted an attempt was made to cover up the whole incident and it was only when the media reported about the incident that fresh life was infused into the case. The whole incident would have been swept under the carpet if not for the timely intervention of certain individuals. The court noted the serious accusations made by the survivor cannot be ignored as false or frivolous at this stage.
The victim in her statement stated the consent was not unequivocal or voluntary. She described as to how she was threatened and forced to succumb to the carnal desires of the accused.
‘Not consensual’
The prosecution said the petitioners’ contention it was consensual sex was false and had been denied by the victim