Kerala HC Grants Bail In False Promise Rape Case | Married Woman Cannot Allege Rape On Promise Of Marriage | Section 69 Offence Prima Facie Not Attracted
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that when the prosecution’s admitted case is that the de facto complainant is a married woman, there cannot be sexual intercourse based on a promise to marry. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to specific conditions. It further clarified that the observations made in the order are solely for the purpose of disposing of the bail application and shall have no bearing at any other stage of the proceedings. The Bench issued its final order on the bail plea filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner filed the bail application under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was accused in Crime No. 755 of 2025 of Malappuram Police Station, registered for offences punishable under sections 84 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner had allegedly given a false promise of marriage, sexually assaulted the de facto complainant, threatened to publish her photos and videos, and borrowed a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- thereby committing the alleged offences. The petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2025 and remained in custody since then.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the allegations were totally false and that the incident as alleged did not occur. It was contended that even going by the prosecution’s allegations, the victim is a married lady and therefore sexual intercourse under a promise of marriage is not legally possible. The counsel submitted that the FIR indicated the complaint was primarily based on a financial claim and that the allegation of rape on promise of marriage was made only to ensure that the petitioner yielded to her illegal demands. Further, it was submitted that continued detention of the petitioner was unnecessary considering his young age.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations were serious in nature. It was pointed out that since the petitioner had been arrested only on 13.06.2025, his continued detention was necessary.
The Court considered the rival contentions and perused the statement of the victim given to the police. It was noticed that the de facto complainant was a married woman. One of the offences alleged was under Section 84 of BNS, dealing with enticing or taking away with criminal intent a married woman. The Court referred to its previous judgments in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala [2021 (1) KHC 435] and Ranjith v. State of Kerala [2022 (1) KLT 19], which held that there cannot be a promise of marriage when one of the parties is already in a subsisting marriage.
The Court recorded that prima facie it was doubtful whether the offence under Section 69 could be attracted. Section 84 was noted as a bailable offence and therefore the continued detention of the petitioner was held unnecessary. The Court further observed that it was difficult at this stage to arrive at a conclusion regarding whether the relationship was consensual or not, especially when the complainant was a married lady and both parties were aware of the subsisting marriage.
The Court observed: “On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the statement of the victim given to the police, it is noticed that the de facto complainant is a married lady. In fact, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner is that under Section 84 of BNS, which deals with enticing or taking away with criminal intent a married woman.”
It stated: “Once the admitted case of the prosecution itself is that the de facto complainant is a married woman, there cannot be sexual intercourse with the promise of marriage.”
The Court further recorded: “As observed by this Court in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (1) KHC 435] as well as Ranjith v. State of Kerala [2022 (1) KLT 19] there cannot be a promise of marriage when one of the parties is in a subsisting marriage.”
It observed: “In such a view of the matter, prima facie, it is doubtful whether the offence under Section 69 can be attracted.”
Regarding Section 84 BNS, the Court stated: “As far as Section 84 is concerned, it is a bailable offence and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary.”
The Bench further recorded: “While considering the cases alleging rape on the basis of the promise of marriage, it is difficult for this Court at this juncture to enter into a conclusion regarding whether the relationship was consensual or not. The entire circumstances will have to be taken into consideration especially when a married lady enters into a physical relationship with another person.”
Finally, it observed: “If both of the parties are aware about a subsisting marriage it cannot be alleged that the sexual intercourse between them was with a promise to marry.”
The Court allowed the bail application, directing that the petitioner be released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
It directed that the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required. The Court ordered that the petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence any witnesses, nor tamper with evidence or contact the victim or her family members.
It directed that the petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while on bail and shall not leave India without the permission of the court having jurisdiction.
The Court further directed that if there is any violation of these conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions is required, the jurisdictional court is empowered to consider such applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding that bail had been granted by the High Court.
It clarified that the observations in the order are made solely for the purpose of disposing of the bail application and will have no bearing at any other stage of the proceedings.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri. Ameen Hassan K., Advocate; Shri. Rebin Vincent Gralan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri. Noushad K. A., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXX. vs. State of Kerala and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:48012
Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 7916 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
