Allegations of sexual intercourse based on a promise of marriage may constitute an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, despite consent, necessitating denial of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This appeal has been filed at the instance of the sole accused in Crime No. 81 of 2026, Nagaroor Police Station, challenging the order dated 02.03.2026 in Crl.M.C.No.7/2026, whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant/accused was dismissed by the learned Special Judge under theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PoA) Act', for short), Nedumangad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the defacto complainant appeared in person and the learned counsel appearing for her and perused the order impugned.

3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the appellant/accused.

4. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant (a member of the Scheduled Caste community), and the appellant (who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community) got acquainted with each other one year ago and have maintained love affair for the past six months. The appellant is a neighbour of the defacto complainant. It is alleged further that the appellant made a promise to marry the defacto complainant, and in pursuance of the same, at about 11.30 p.m., on 03.02.2026, the appellant took the defacto complainant to his house, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse with assurance that he would marry her. Thereafter on 04.02.2026, in the early morning, while they were sitting at the Railway Station, Kazhakuttom, they were taken to the police station, where the appellant agreed to stay with the defacto complainant at her house. Pursuant to the undertaking, the appellant and the defacto complainant went to the defacto complainant's house. It is alleged further that at 1.30 p.m., on 05.02.2026, defacto complainant was again subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant at her house repeating promise of marriage and the appellant left the defacto complainant's house, at 6.30 p.m., on the same day, under the pretext of taking his Aadhaar card for the purpose of registering their marriage. It is alleged that thereafter, he neither returned back nor attended her calls. Thus, the appellant retracted from his promise to marry the defacto complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution records would reveal that the defacto complainant and the appellant have been in love relationship and even the appellant was ready to marry the defacto complainant, he could not solemnize the marriage, due to the objection raised by his parents. It is pointed out that since the relationship is consensual, none of the alleged offences would get attracted, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and the finding of the Special Court that prima facie offences alleged were made out warrants interference, by allowing this appeal.

6. The defacto complainant appeared in person and narrated the incident in detail as stated in the First Information Statement. According to her, the appellant maintained love relationship with her on the promise of marriage and thereafter, at 11.30 p.m., on 03.02.2026, she was taken to the appellant's house and subjected to sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage. It was done again at 1.30 p.m., on 05.02.2026, at the residence of the defacto complainant and thereafter, the appellant left the house of the defacto complainant on the pretext of taking his Aadhaar card for the registration of marriage, making her to believe that the marriage would be registered. Thereafter, the appellant could not be contacted and he deviated from the promise of marriage. This version of the defacto compla