The court emphasized that a relationship based on mutual consent negates accusations of non-consensual sex unless fraudulent intent is proven.

ORDER

Dated : 18^th December, 2025 The defacto complainant in Crime No. 1899 of 2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station filed this petition praying for setting aside the pre-arrest bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Alapuzha, to the third respondent, namely the accused in the above crime.

2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 87 , 74, 76, 69 and 64(2)(m) of BNS . The prosecution case is that the accused, after suppressing his earlier marriage, promised to marry the defacto complainant, took her to various places, sexually exploited her and thereafter, failed to marry her and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant is aged 23 while the accused is aged 35. The accused after suppressing his earlier marriage promised to marry the defacto complainant and took her to various places and sexually exploited her to the maximum and thereafter he demanded dowry for marrying the defacto complainant and as such, according to him, the offences alleged against the petitioner are made out. According to the petitioner, though the offences alleged against the third respondent are very serious in nature, the learned Sessions Judge passed Annexure-A7 bail order in his favour without assigning valid reasons. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, annexure A7 pre-arrest bail granted by the sessions judge is liable to be set aside.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the third respondent/accused. According to the learned counsel, the relationship between the petitioner and the third respondent was purely a consensual one. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, as per Annexure A7 order, the third respondent surrendered before the trial court, his custody was obtained by the police, the police conducted his potency test and thereafter, he was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the learned counsel for the third respondent/accused prayed for dismissing the Crl.MC.

5. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh Alias Prince , 2025 KHC OnLine 6977, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that bail granted without due application of mind to relevant factors, such as the gravity of the offence, prima facie evidence or antecedents of the accused may be nullified. According to the learned counsel, this Court in Revision has the power to set aside a bail order that is perverse, unjustified or passed in violation of settled legal principles.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court inState of Kerala v. Aboobacker P. , 2019 (1) KHC 656. In the above decision this Court has held that anticipatory bail shall not be granted as a matter of course and the power should be exercised only when a special case is made out. Further, according to the learned counsel, the decision inAmol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra , 2025 (4) KHC 607, relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge has no application in the facts of this case. He has also relied upon the decision in Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Another , (2022) 20 SCC 645 , in support of his argument.

7. However, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent/accused relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sekh Jamir Hossain , 2025 KHC 6557, would argue that bail once granted to the accused should not be normally cancelled or interfered with unless there exists circumstances giving rise to an inference that t