B.A.No.4125 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28296 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4125 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1444/2024 OF KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: JARIS METHAR AGED 47 YEARS S/O. MAITHEEN, KUNJU METHAR, JABIR MANZIL, MANNANCHERY, ALAPPUZHA, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688538 BY ADVS. K.M.FIROZ M.SHAJNA P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574 BY ADV. SRI.G SUDHEER, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.4125 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28296 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4125 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1444/2024 of Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The defacto complainant is working as an International Cabin Crew of Saudi Airlines. The defacto complainant acquainted with the petitioner, who was a regular passenger of Saudi Airlines. It is alleged that the petitioner promised to marry the defacto complainant and thereafter there was physical relationship between them. Now, the petitioner has withdrawn from the promise. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offence. B.A.No.4125 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28296 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the sexual relationship was with the consent of the victim. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor made available a copy of the First Information Statement given by the victim. 7. This Court perused the First Information Statement. A perusal of the same would show that there was continuous relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant knows that the petitioner is a married man. She stated that, he promised to marry her also because their community permits more than one marriage. A perusal of the statement would show that they stayed together at several places and there was physical relationship. The Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra & B.A.No.4125 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28296 Anr. [2024 Live Law (SC) 921] considered the matter in detail. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “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. ” 8. In Manish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 363], the Apex Court considered a similar point. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: B.A.No.4125 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28296 “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. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, this Court once again perused the First Information Statement. I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for two consecutive days from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. so that the procedures can be completed. 10. 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 B.A.No.4125 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28296 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. 11. 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 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 B.A.No.4125 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28296 the officer to arrest the accused.” 12. 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. 13. 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. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for two consecutive days from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. after surrender. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on B.A.No.4125 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28296 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is B.A.No.4125 of 2025 9 2025:KER:28296 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. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional B.A.No.4125 of 2025 10 2025:KER:28296 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 DM