The court ruled that allegations of rape based on a broken relationship and promises of marriage do not fulfill the necessary legal criteria for custodial interrogation.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.489 of 2025 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

3. According to the prosecution, the accused, after becoming acquainted with the defacto complainant through Facebook, expressed his willingness to marry her and thereafter, on 13.07.2024 and 26.08.2024, committed rape on her and later withdrew from the proposed marriage and thereby committed the offence alleged. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations against the petitioner are false and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime. He further submitted that the offence under Section 69 of BNS , has no application, considering the nature of the allegations. It was also pointed out that the defacto complainant herself had put up a Whatsapp post stating that her relationship with the defacto complainant had been broken due to incompatibility and that they have decided to resile from the marriage. It is later that the defacto complainant has raised the allegations by registering the First Information Report.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are serious and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

7. The petitioner and the defacto complainant are alleged to be television actors and were in a relationship, according to the defacto complainant. They even had an engagement ceremony, which was conducted on 08.01.2023 in an auditorium. Subsequently, the relationship did not culminate in a marriage, due to various reasons. The defacto complainant alleges that in the meantime, the petitioner had forced himself upon her, thereby committing the offence alleged.

8. On a perusal of the offence under Section 69 of BNS , this Court notices that the ingredients will be attracted only when there is sexual intercourse between a man and woman with the promise to marry, which act does not amount to the offence of rape. Considering the nature of allegations, as evident from the First Information Statement, this Court is of the view that those indicate a romantic relationship which subsequently turned sour after an engagement was conducted between them. The allegations prima facie do not indicate the commission of offences alleged. The aforesaid view is supported by Annexure A10 Whatsapp chat, apparently posted by the defacto complainant herself. This Court of the view that subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation in such circumstances would cause serious prejudice.

9. InSushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1] , it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

10. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial investigation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima