The High Court of Kerala, while granting bail to a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage, observed that a consensual relationship turning sour at a later point cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted the relief, noting that the long-standing nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant prima facie indicated consent.
The court was hearing a bail application filed by the accused in Crime No. 1048/2025 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The accused was booked under Sections 69, 74, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). He was arrested on August 31, 2025, and had been in custody since.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the accused had engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim multiple times from 2023 until August 6, 2025, after promising to marry her. The prosecution further alleged that the accused had assaulted the victim.
The victim’s statement reveals that she is a divorced lady with a seven-year-old child. She became acquainted with the accused in 2023 at a gym he owned. Their acquaintance developed into a physical relationship based on a promise of marriage. The complainant alleged that on several occasions between 2023 and August 27, 2025, she engaged in a physical relationship with the accused, who had also offered to take her to Canada. However, he subsequently began avoiding her and blocked her on his mobile phone, leading to the complaint.
Arguments Presented
The counsel for the petitioner argued for bail on the grounds that the accused had been in custody since August 31, 2025.
The learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Kerala, opposed the bail application.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, after reviewing the victim’s statement, observed that the facts indicated a long-term relationship. The court noted, “A reading of the above statement prima facie indicates that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim for almost two years.”
The court pointed out that the victim had “willingly gone with him to his house and other places and engaged in sexual intercourse.” Based on these circumstances, the court opined that “there is an indication of a consensual relationship,” clarifying that this is a matter to be concluded after the investigation.
In its order, the High Court cited two key Supreme Court decisions. The first was Prashant v. State of NCT, Delhi [2024 INSC 879], where the Supreme Court had observed that “merely because a relationship between a couple has turned sour and the marriage did not take place are not reasons to assume that the offence of rape was committed or that the physical relationship was entered into on the basis of a false promise of marriage.”
The second precedent cited was Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 782], in which the apex court held that “a consensual relationship turning sour at a later point in time or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State and that such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.”
Concluding its analysis, the court stated, “In view of the above, I am of the opinion that further custody of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the petitioner on the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
- He must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
- He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses, nor shall he tamper with evidence.
- He shall not commit any similar offences while on bail.
- He shall not leave India without the permission of the court having jurisdiction.
