Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ANOOP SHAHEIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 9441 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.435/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.GEO PAUL, SRI.C.R.PRAMOD, SHRI.JACOB GEORGE PALLATH, SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN A.S., SHRI.C.B.GAUTHAM, SMT.MARIYAM MATHEWS
For the Respondents: SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
An anticipatory bail application was denied due to prima facie evidence of deceit in a promise of marriage leading to alleged sexual intercourse.
Headnote:This judgment addresses an anticipatory bail application under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 435 of 2025, which alleges sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage. The court examines the nature of the relationship and the alleged promises made by the petitioner and ultimately concludes that a prima facie case exists for the prosecution. The court frames the core issue as whether the promise of marriage was indeed false from the outset, emphasizing the need to differentiate between false promises and genuine intentions that did not materialize. It was found that the evidence supports allegations of deceit, warranting the dismissal of the bail application. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed with conditions for surrender and subsequent proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusations about a false promise and sexual conduct. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of the relationship and intentions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and legal implications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. final ruling on the bail application. (Para 14) |
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.435 of 2025 of Thrikkakara Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ' BNS ').
3. According to the prosecution, the accused became acquainted with the defacto complainant through a matrimonial site and under a false promise of marriage, he indulged in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant on 06.08.2024 in a car and thereafter took her to his flat at Ludhiana and continued to indulge in such a relationship from 14.11.2024 to 01.01.2025 and again had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant from 02.06.2025 to 03.06.2025 resulting in the defacto complainant becoming pregnant and thereafter he wriggled out of the promise to marry and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations. According to the learned counsel, the defacto complainant is attempting to convert a consensual relationship into an offence under section 69 of BNS to wreak vengeance due to a break in relationship between them. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are divorced from their respective spouses and thereafter they became acquainted with each other through a matrimonial site and subsequently their marriage was fixed. However, since petitioner's mother was not agreeable to the marriage, he could not proceed, which was communicated to the defacto complainant. Still, they continued to maintain their relationship indicating that there was no sexual intercourse on the basis of a promise of marriage and on the other hand it was a pure consensual relationship. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed upon him.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the allegations are serious in nature which requires custodial interrogation. According to the learned Prosecutor, the accused had taken the victim to a hotel at Thrissur on 23.08.2024 and again on 18.09.2024, he took her to Malampuzha and later in November, 2024 she was asked to come and reside with him at Ludhiana at Punjab, where he was working and they lived together for sometime, all clearly communicating that the petitioner was intending to marry her. However, subsequently, he has backed out of the marriage after satisfying his sexual desires and therefore petitioner ought not to be granted anticipatory bail.
6. The victim appeared before this Court personally and stated that they had agreed to proceed with the marriage after becoming acquainted through a matrimonial site wherein both had uploaded their profiles. According to the defacto complainant, even after the mother was not agreeable to the marriage as stated by the petitioner, he continued to promise her that he will be able to persuade his mother and will marry her and it was on that promise she indulged in sexual intercourse with him. According to the defacto complainant, petitioner had used her for satisfying his sexual desires and he was at the same maintaining relationships with other women which was found out by the petitioner and when it was questioned, he backed out of the marriage and therefore the petitioner ought not to be granted anticipatory bail.
7. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the case diary.
8. Petitioner is a Psychiatrist working at Ludhiana in Punjab. The defacto co
