Failed Consensual Relationship, Not Ground To Allege Rape
Thanks for studying this put up, remember to subscribe!
The Kerala Excessive Court docket granted anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old rape accused, observing that the grievance confirmed indicators of a consensual relationship. The Court docket mentioned, “Failed consensual relationship isn’t a floor to allege rape.”
The Kerala Excessive Court docket granted anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old man accused of rape, noting that the complainant’s assertion prompt a prima facie consensual relationship.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that arrest and remand shouldn’t be misused as punitive measures in circumstances the place a romantic relationship takes a flip for the more severe and allegations of rape come up.
The choose said,
“Courts should be cautious when two younger folks enter right into a keen 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,”
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: “Live-In Relationship Goes Against Women’s Interest”
The Court docket concluded that invoking legal legislation underneath the cost of rape in these circumstances was inappropriate.
The Court docket asserted,
“Merely as a result of a consensual relationship turned bitter at a later level of time, it can’t be a motive to allege rape. Additional, there can’t be a case of deceitfully acquiring consent underneath a false promise of marriage because the de facto complainant continues 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 should be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail,”
The petitioner confronted costs underneath Part 64(1) (punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly raping a married girl, who can be a third-year medical scholar, in a lodge room close to Thamarassery on November 3 and 4, 2024. The First Info Report (FIR) was filed 5 months after the alleged incident.
The anticipatory bail software was submitted regarding the crime registered on the Thamarassery Police Station, the place the petitioner was accused of non-consensual sexual activity with the complainant.
Also Read: Delhi High Court: Adolescents Should Have Romantic Relationships Without Legal Fear
The protection argued that the allegations had been fabricated and stemmed from a consensual relationship that had soured over time.
Upon reviewing the girl’s First Info Assertion (FIS) and the FIR, the Court docket noticed that her personal account indicated that she willingly traveled, stayed with the petitioner, and maintained contact with him by means of social media platforms like Instagram and Snapchat.
The Court docket additionally famous that it couldn’t be thought-about a case of deceit in forming the connection primarily based on a false promise of marriage since she was already married at the moment.
Emphasizing that there was no prima facie indication of rape because of the consensual nature of the connection, the Court docket concluded,
“When a married girl, on her personal volition travelled all the best way 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 Court docket highlighted the significance of judicial warning in addressing such false allegations, notably when younger people are concerned in romantic relationships that finish negatively.
Also Read: Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code | Only One Live-In Relationship Registered in 10 Days
Given the prosecution’s incapacity to justify the necessity for custodial interrogation, the Court docket accepted the bail software with stringent circumstances, together with necessary appearances earlier than the Investigating Officer for restricted interrogation and a prohibition towards contacting the complainant or tampering with proof.
Advocates P Abdul Nishad, Najma Thabsheera T, KC Mohamed Rashid, and Ajisha MS represented the petitioner, whereas Public Prosecutor Sreeja V represented the State.
Case Title: XXXXX v State of Kerala & anr
Learn Attachment
