Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, Kerala High Court
Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Not Ground For Rape Allegation: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail
|A 27-year-old man was accused of raping a married third-year medical student in a hotel room.
The Kerala High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old man accused of rape, observed that a consensual relationship that later turns bitter cannot, by itself, form the basis for a rape allegation.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by a married woman also a third-year medical student alleging that the petitioner had raped her in a hotel room. The FIR, filed after a five-month delay, invoked Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to the offence of rape.
A Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, "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."
It added, "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."
Advocate P Abdul Nishad appeared for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor Sreeja V appeared for the Respondents.
The Court found no immediate evidence to support a non-consensual act. It noted that the complainant had voluntarily travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode and stayed with the accused at multiple lodges for two nights. She also maintained regular communication with the petitioner via Instagram and Snapchat. These facts, the Court said, painted a picture of voluntary association rather than coercion.
The Court also dismissed the claim that the complainant had been misled into giving consent under a false promise of marriage. As the woman was legally married at the time and her marriage remained valid, the Court held that there could be no case of deception under the pretext of marriage.
"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 judgment stated.
Given the prosecution’s inability to justify the need for custodial interrogation and in the absence of compelling evidence of non-consensual sex, the Court granted anticipatory bail. It, however, imposed strict conditions, including mandatory appearances before the Investigating Officer for limited custodial questioning and an explicit prohibition on contacting the complainant or tampering with evidence.
Cause Title: Sameer Ibrahim v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2025:KER:45498]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates P Abdul Nishad, Najma Thabsheera T, KC Mohamed Rashid, and Ajisha MS.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V.