The court finds no necessity for custodial interrogation, allowing pre-arrest bail due to lack of criminal antecedents and the need for cooperative investigation.

ORDER

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

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1264/2025 of Ayiroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 74 , 87 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the defacto complainant/victim and Sona, the wife of the applicant are friends and they were studying in the same college. The applicant and Sona is having a child, however they were not in good terms. The defacto complainant joined the health club of the applicant during October 2023. The applicant told his relatives that he is going to marry the defacto complainant and thus the relationship between the applicant and his wife Sona became worse. On 20.03.2024, the applicant came to the college where the defacto complainant was studying and took her in a bike to a house near Kadakkal Government hospital and committed sexual intercourse. The relatives of the defacto complainant had given a woman missing case before Ayiroor Police Station. Thereafter she was produced before the Magistrate and the case was closed on 21.03.2024. Thereafter on various occasions, the applicant had made telephone call through BOTIM application and asked the defacto complainant to pose naked. The said videos were recorded by the applicant. It is further alleged that in September 2025, the applicant apprehended the defacto complainant, destroyed her scooter and later sent the videos to Amal to whom she was engaged. Thus, the applicant committed the above offences.

4. I have heard Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri.Anand Sankar, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, and Sri.M.C. Ashi, the learned Senior 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 above crime. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant's intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6. I went through the FIS, which is marked as Annexure-1. The applicant is the husband of the victim’s close friend. The applicant was a gym trainer. She joined the applicant’s gym. They met at the gym, and the relationship became intense shortly thereafter. A reading of the FIS would show they went together and had sexual intercourse more than twice. The victim was very well aware of the fact that the applicant is a married person. According to the victim, the first sexual intercourse was forceful in nature. However, Annexure 2 shows that after the said incident, an FIR was registered as a man-missing complaint, and the victim was produced before the Magistrate, where she stated that she went with the applicant voluntarily. Thereafter, also, the victim went along with the applicant, and they had a physical relationship. There is also an allegation that the applicant recorded her nude body on his mobile phone and shared it with her friends and relatives. As instructed by this Court, the applicant has produced the said mobile phone before the investigating officer. In these circumstances, I am of the view that further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. He has no criminal antecedents as well. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case