The court establishes that voluntary participation in illicit activities does not constitute coercion under relevant statutes.

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.115/2025 of the Guruvayoor Temple Police Station. The offence alleged against him are under Section 138 and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Prosecution case is that the petitioner, a married man having two children, indulged in sexual intercourse by deceitful means with the de facto complainant, a married woman having a son, at a lodge room near KSRTC bus stand, Guruvayoor on 11.08.2024. As per the allegation in the First Information Statement, the petitioner and the de facto complainant initially came into contact through social media platform. It is made clear in the FIS by the victim that she was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner is a married man having two children. According to her, the petitioner had induced her to believe that he would marry her. The marital discord of the petitioner with his wife and that of the de facto complainant with her husband is said to be the common factor which made both of them close. According to the de facto complainant, she had voluntarily gone along with the petitioner to the lodge room at Guruvayoor on

11.8.2024. However, it is alleged that the sexual relationship was without her consent. It is based on the aforesaid allegation that the de facto complainant lodged the complaint before the Guruvayoor Temple Police after about six months from the date of the incident.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. As already stated above, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 138 and 69 of the BNS. Section 138 of the BNS is attracted whenever it is shown that the offender had by force compelled, or by deceitful means induced any person to go from any place. As far as the present case is concerned, it appears from the FIS that the de facto complainant had gone to the lodge room at Guruvayoor with the petitioner voluntarily and without any compulsion. It is true that the statement of the de facto complainant is that she was taken to Guruvayoor for offering worship at the temple. However, the fact remains that the de facto complainant, a married woman having a son, had opted to go along with the petitioner, a married man having two children, to a lodge room at Guruvayoor, without any compulsion or force on the part of the petitioner. Apart from a casual and superficial statement in the FIS that the sexual relationship which took place on 11.08.2024 at the lodge room at Guruvayoor, was without her consent, there is absolutely no other statement given by the de facto complainant pertaining to any force or violence on the part of the petitioner in making her surrender for the sexual relationship on that eventful day. The promise of marriage allegedly made by the petitioner cannot be considered as a deceitful inducement since the de facto complainant was well aware of the fact that the petitioner is having a family consisting of wife and children, and that she too is wedded to another man in whom she had procreated a son. It is also pertinent to note that for a period of about six months after the incident, the de facto complainant did not raise any complaint against the alleged act of the deceitful sexual intercourse with her, on 11.08.2024. It appears from the First Information Statement that the de facto complainant opted to prefer a complaint once she realised that the petitioner avoided responding to her messages and phone calls, after the arrival of his wife from abroad. The above aspects point to the fact that the petit