Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
Mahesh V.M – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Application No. 9593 of 2025
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 915/2025 under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging sexual assault of a married woman under false promise of marriage from August 2016 to July 2025. (!) (!) (!) (!) The victim, married with three children, lived with the petitioner despite her subsisting marriage, and he married another woman in January 2025 while continuing to cohabit with her. (!)
The court held that the victim's existing marriage negated prima facie allegations of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage. (!) Petitioner's counsel argued false implication, while the Public Prosecutor opposed bail. (!) (!) Finding no demonstrated need for custodial interrogation and considering the allegations' nature, the court granted bail subject to conditions, including limited custody for interrogation on specified dates, execution of a bail bond if arrested post-interrogation, cooperation with investigation, non-intimidation of witnesses, no contact with victim/family, no similar offenses, and no leaving India without permission. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Violation allows cancellation by the jurisdictional court. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal basis for filing bail application under bnss. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. nature of allegations impacts legal standing based on victim's marital status. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. court finds no need for custodial interrogation. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 4. arguments presented by the petitioner and the state. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. guidelines for consideration of anticipatory bail. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. decision to allow bail with specific conditions. (Para 11) |
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.915/2025 of Palakkad Town North Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 64 (2)(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, from August 2016 till 24.07.2025, sexually assaulted the victim under the promise of marriage at various places and even lived with the victim, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
7. Petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police, now serving in the Kerala Armed Police Battalion. The victim had married another person and is a mother of three children. In the year 2016, she is alleged to have been with the petitioner, and pursuant to a complaint by her husband, she was produced before the police station, where she refused to return and thereafter continued to live with the petitioner. Though the victim is allegedly separated from her husband, the marriage has not been dissolved by law. The investigation conducted so far has revealed that the victim had been living with the petitioner till July 2025. In the meantime, petitioner is alleged to have married another lady in January 2025 and even thereafter, he continued to live with the victim until July 2025. Though the allegations are serious, since the victim is already in a subsisting marriage, allegation of sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage cannot legally exist, atleast prima facie.
8. 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.
9. 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 interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial investigation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
10. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. Having regard to the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. However he must subject himself to interrogation for the purpose of completing the investigation under a limited custody as observed in Sushila Agarwal’s case (supra).
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 08.09.2025 from 10:00 am to 05:00 pm and again on 09.09.2025 during the same time, which period shall be treated as limited custody.
(b) If after interro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
