2025:KER:30081 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 1699 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1375/2024 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.142 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/S: R. KRISHNAKUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O. V.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, 9D, BEACON TERRACE, MANNANTHALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695015 BY ADVS. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN BHARATH MOHAN K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695015 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 2 3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADV B.THARIF SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.1699 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1375/2024 of Mannathala Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 324 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution case is that, during 2019, the petitioner got acquainted with the defacto complainant, who was residing near to the house of the petitioner. Both the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant are married and both of them have children. It is alleged that they got acquainted, and on 13.03.2020 at about 07:00p.m., the petitioner reached the house of the defacto complainant compelled her to drink an intoxicated liquid, made her to 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 4 believe that the same is wine. Thereafter, the petitioner sexually assaulted the defacto complainant without her consent. It is alleged that the petitioner promised to marry her and thereafter, there is continuous sexual relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant at different places at different dates. The petitioner is not ready to marry the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the relationship is only consensual, no criminal offence is made out. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that there was a promise from the side of the petitioner and that is why the defacto complainant gave 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 5 consent for the sexual intercourse. He submitted that, petitioner cheated the defacto complainant. He also submitted that the petitioner cheated other ladies also. This Court may not grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application. He also made available the FIS given by the defacto complainant. 8. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused the FIS given by the defacto complainant. The Apex Court in Manish Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 363], observed like this: " 22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present case appears to be one where a consensual physical relationship between two adults has turned sour due to certain intervening events. Hence, allowing the prosecution of the appellant for the offences mentioned above would tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of law and nothing else." 9. The Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare V. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921], observed like this: 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 6 " 22. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact." 10. Keeping in mind the above principle, this Court perused the prosecution case. I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on two days continuously from 10:00 am to 04:00pm., and 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 7 thereafter, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner on bail. 11. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 12. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder. “12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 8 existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” 13. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. He shall appear two days continuously from 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 9 10:00 am to 04:00pm., after surrender. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co- operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 10 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025 11 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE SSG