Pre-arrest bail is denied due to serious allegations and need for custodial interrogation, emphasizing the gravity of the case and potential interference with the investigation.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS ') seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused in Crime No.504 of

2025 of Narakal Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 64 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS '). 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant had sexual intercourse with the victim after giving false promise of marriage for a continuous period of more than four years and thereby committed the offence.

4. I have heard Sri.K.Biju, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor.

Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 482 of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part.

7. A reading of the FIS would show that the applicant and the victim were in a physical relationship for a long period. The definite case of the victim is that she consented to sexual intercourse persuaded by the promise given by the applicant that he would marry her. In the FIS, the victim has stated that the applicant and the victim had decided to marry with the consent of their parents and for a period of four years, they lived as husband and wife, indulging in sexual acts in a rented house. The learned Public Prosecutor relying on the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh alias Soni Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2025) 4 SCC 197] argued that even if there is a false promise of marriage, if the relationship continued for a pretty long period, the offence under Section 376 of IPC (Section 64 of BNS ) would not be attracted. The dictum laid down in the said decision will not be attracted to the facts of this case. First of all, the offence under Section 69 of , which has been introduced for the first time in the was not involved in the case pertaining to the said decision. That apart, here is a case where it is revealed from the investigation that the applicant and the victim gave a notice of intent to marry under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act before the Sub Registrar. The copy of the said notice produced would show that the applicant has subscribed his signature in the said notice. The definite case of the victim is that thereafter the applicant withdrew from the marriage. Admittedly, the marriage pursuant to the said notice has not taken place. It is also not in dispute that the applicant and the victim had sexual intercourse. Therefore, the offences are prima facie attracted.

The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the in