IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4205 OF 2024 CRIME NO.490/2024 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S:

ASHIK C.T AGED 28 YEARS SON OF ASSAINAAR, CHAPPATHODI HOUSE, MULLAMPARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676517 BY ADVS.

C.C.ANOOP AFLAH C.P.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682505 OTHER PRESENT:

SR.PP.K.P.HARISH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2024 Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.490 of 2024 of Njarakkal Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC. The crime is registered on the allegation that, the petitioner and the de facto complainant were having a romantic relationship while working in Bihar and had indulged in sex on the assurance of the petitioner that he would marry the de facto complainant once she obtains divorce from her husband. The petitioner retracted from his promise after the de facto complainant obtained divorce in February, 2024 and married another lady without her knowledge.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even going by the allegations in the complaint, the petitioner and the de facto complainant were having a romantic relationship and the sexual intercourse was purely consensual in nature. It is submitted that the alleged incident had occurred while the de facto complainant's marriage with another person was subsisting and she cannot therefore allege rape, merely for the reason that the petitioner had married another lady.

3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

4. Even going by the statement of the de facto complainant, the parties were in a romantic relationship and had indulged in consensual sex at a point of time when the de facto complainant's marriage was subsisting. The question therefore is whether the petitioner's refusal to marry the de facto complainant after she obtained divorce would render the consensual sex they had indulged in earlier 'rape' or whether the petitioner's refusal to marry the de facto complainant would amount to cheating. That question is to be decided by the trial court based on the evidence tendered by the prosecution.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, I find the petitioner to be entitled for pre-arrest bail. The bail is hence allowed with the following directions;

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within two weeks.

(ii) The investigating officer shall interrogate the petitioner and in the event of his arrest, release him on bail, on the petitioner executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

(iii) The petitioner shall not enter the limits of Njarakkal Police Station until the investigation is over, except when summoned by the police for the purpose of investigation.

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

(v) The petitioner shall not get involved in any similar offence during the pendency of the bail.

(vi) The petitioner shall not intimidate the de facto complainant or try to influence the witnesses.

If any one of the above conditions is violated, the investigating officer will be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/