Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail
The Kerala Excessive Court docket, whereas granting anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old man accused of rape, noticed {that a} consensual relationship that later turns bitter can’t, by itself, type the premise for a rape allegation.
The case stemmed from a grievance lodged by a married lady additionally a third-year medical pupil alleging that the petitioner had raped her in a lodge room. The FIR, filed after a five-month delay, invoked Part 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to the offence of rape.
A Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, “Courts should be cautious when two younger individuals enter right into a prepared bodily relationship and later rape is attributed to their union. Refusing bail blindly in such circumstances, with out contemplating the circumstances, can result in injustice and destroy the younger character. Arrest and remand being a curtailment of the cherished liberty of an individual, it should be resorted to provided that the circumstances warrant such a course to be adopted.“
It added, “Merely as a result of a consensual relationship turned bitter at a later level of time, it can’t be a purpose to allege rape. Additional, there can’t be a case of deceitfully acquiring consent below a false promise of marriage because the de facto complainant remains to be in a subsisting marriage. Since prima facie I’m happy that the assertion given by the de facto complainant doesn’t point out an occasion of rape stricto senso, petitioner must be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.“
Advocate P Abdul Nishad appeared for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor Sreeja V appeared for the Respondents.
The Court docket discovered no instant proof to assist a non-consensual act. It famous that the complainant had voluntarily travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode and stayed with the accused at a number of lodges for 2 nights. She additionally maintained common communication with the petitioner by way of Instagram and Snapchat. These info, the Court docket stated, painted a image of voluntary affiliation relatively than coercion.
The Court docket additionally dismissed the declare that the complainant had been misled into giving consent below a false promise of marriage. As the girl was legally married on the time and her marriage remained legitimate, the Court docket held that there may very well be no case of deception below the pretext of marriage.
“When a married woman, on her personal volition travelled all the way in which from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode and willingly stayed with the petitioner in numerous lodges, that too for 2 nights, it can’t be assumed that the bodily relationship between them was with out her consent,” the judgment acknowledged.
Given the prosecution’s incapability to justify the necessity for custodial interrogation and within the absence of compelling proof of non-consensual intercourse, the Court docket granted anticipatory bail. It, nevertheless, imposed strict circumstances, together with obligatory appearances earlier than the Investigating Officer for restricted custodial questioning and an express prohibition on contacting the complainant or tampering with proof.
Trigger Title: Sameer Ibrahim v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2025:KER:45498]
Look:
Petitioner: Advocates P Abdul Nishad, Najma Thabsheera T, KC Mohamed Rashid, and Ajisha MS.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V.
