The Kerala High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old man accused of rape, observing that the facts suggested a consensual relationship rather than non-consensual sexual assault.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while allowing the plea, emphasized that arrest and remand should not be used as punitive tools in cases where romantic relationships later turn sour and result in allegations of rape.

“Courts must be cautious when two young people enter into a willing physical relationship and later rape is attributed to their union. Arrest and remand curtail personal liberty and must be exercised only when truly warranted,” the judge said.

The petitioner had been booked under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the offence of rape, based on a complaint by a married woman who is a third-year medical student. The alleged incident took place in a hotel room near Thamarassery on November 3 and 4, 2024. However, the complaint was filed five months later.

After examining the FIR and the woman's statement, the Court noted that she had travelled voluntarily from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode and stayed with the accused at multiple lodges. She also maintained contact with him through social media platforms like Instagram and Snapchat.

Justice Thomas pointed out that allegations of deceit on the promise of marriage could not be sustained since the complainant was already married and her marriage was still legally valid.

“Merely because a consensual relationship turned sour at a later point of time, it cannot be a reason to allege rape,” the Court stated, adding that there was no prima facie case of rape as defined under law.

The Court stressed the need for judicial caution when dealing with such accusations, especially in cases involving young individuals in failed romantic relationships.

Given the lack of grounds for custodial interrogation, the Court granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including limited custody interrogation, prohibition from contacting the complainant, and a bar on tampering with evidence.

Advocates P Abdul Nishad, Najma Thabsheera T, KC Mohamed Rashid, and Ajisha MS appeared for the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Sreeja V represented the State.

Case Title: XXXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Court: Kerala High Court
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas