The Kerala High Court at Ernakulam granted bail to an accused-petitioner charged under Sections 69, 74 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, finding prima facie evidence of a consensual relationship. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the long-term consensual relationship between the parties and the victim’s willing participation indicated that further custody was not necessary.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim from 2023 till August 6, 2025, after promising to marry her and also assaulted her. The petitioner was arrested on August 31, 2025, and had been in custody since then. The victim’s statement revealed she was a divorced lady with a 7-year-old child who became acquainted with the accused in 2023 at a gym owned by him.
The Court noted that the victim’s statement indicated a consensual relationship for almost two years, during which she willingly went to the accused’s house and other places and engaged in sexual intercourse, and that the accused had even offered to take her to Canada but later started avoiding her and blocked her, leading to the complaint. Justice Thomas emphasized that although the petitioner contended that the victim’s marriage was still subsisting, her statement clearly mentioned she was a divorcee, and found that taking note of the long relationship and her willing participation, there was indication of a consensual relationship, though this was a matter to be concluded after investigation.
Reliance was placed on the recent Supreme Court judgements in Prashant v. State of NCT, Delhi [2024 INSC 879], where it was observed that a failed relationship or non-fulfilment of marriage cannot by itself indicate rape or false promise of marriage. Reference was also made to Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 782], wherein it was noted that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners growing distant cannot justify invoking the criminal machinery of the State, as such conduct unnecessarily burdens courts and tarnishes the identity of the accused.
Conclusively, the Court granted bail to the petitioner on executing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount, subject to usual conditions of cooperation with the investigation and non-tampering with evidence.
Cases relied on:
Prashant v. State of NCT, Delhi
Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra
Appearances:
Petitioner: Binu Babukuttan, Aromalunni M.S., Ananthakrishnan A., Nima Meriyam Koshy, Saji Kumar P.G., Advocates
Respondent: Sreeja V., Public Prosecutor
