The Court observed that arrest and remand should not become tools of punishment in cases where a Broken relationship later turns sour and rape is alleged.
The Kerala High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old man facing rape charges, noting that the complainant’s statement indicated a prima facie consensual relationship between them [XXXXX v State of Kerala & Anr].
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that arrest and remand should not be used as instruments of punishment in situations where a romantic relationship deteriorates and subsequently leads to rape allegations.
“Courts must be cautious when two young people enter into a willing physical relationship and later rape is attributed to their union. Refusing bail blindly in such cases, without considering the circumstances, can lead to injustice and destroy the young personality. Arrest and remand being a curtailment of the cherished liberty of a person, it must be resorted to only if the circumstances warrant such a course to be adopted,“ the judge said.
The Court held that initiating criminal proceedings for rape in such circumstances was unjustified.
“Merely because a consensual relationship turned sour at a later point of time, it cannot be a reason to allege rape. Further, there cannot be a case of deceitfully obtaining consent under a false promise of marriage as the de facto complainant is still in a subsisting marriage. Since prima facie I am satisfied that the statement given by the de facto complainant does not indicate an instance of rape stricto senso, petitioner ought to be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail,“ the Court said.
The petitioner was charged under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly raping a married woman—who is also a third-year medical student—at a hotel near Thamarassery on November 3 and 4, 2024.
As per the First Information Report (FIR), the complaint was lodged five months after the alleged incident.
The anticipatory bail plea was filed before the High Court in connection with a case registered at the Thamarassery Police Station, accusing the petitioner of engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the allegations were false and stemmed from a consensual relationship that eventually fell apart.
After reviewing the woman’s First Information Statement (FIS) and the FIR, the Court observed that her own account revealed she had travelled voluntarily, stayed with the petitioner of her own free will, and remained in contact with him via Instagram and Snapchat.
The Court further noted that a charge of deception through a false promise of marriage was not sustainable, as the woman was already married and her marriage remained legally valid at the time.
“When a married lady, on her own volition travelled all the way from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode and willingly stayed with the petitioner in different lodges, that too for two nights, it cannot be assumed that the physical relationship between them was without her consent,“ the Court said while concluding that there was no prima facie indication of rape due to the relationship being consensual.
The Court emphasized the importance of exercising judicial caution in cases involving potentially false allegations, particularly when young individuals are engaged in romantic relationships that end unpleasantly.
Noting the prosecution’s inability to demonstrate the necessity of custodial interrogation, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to strict conditions—such as the petitioner’s appearance before the Investigating Officer for limited custodial questioning and a ban on contacting the complainant or interfering with evidence.