A promise of marriage cannot vitiate consent given by a married woman, making allegations of rape based on such promises untenable.

O R D E R

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.28/2026 of Kanjar Police Station, Idukki District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 75(1), 351(1), 69 and 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant had sexual intercourse with the victim four times after giving her a false promise of marriage and thereby committed the offences.

4. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, 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 Senior 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. The applicant is a police constable aged 56 years. The victim is a 36-year-old married woman working as a helper at an Anganwadi. A reading of the FI Statement would show that the victim and her husband were not on good terms. The victim met the applicant when she went to the police station where the applicant was working to prefer a complaint against her husband for matrimonial cruelty. She admits that thereafter their relationship became intimate and they voluntarily went together to various places. Four instances of sexual assault have been stated in the FI Statement. The first one was on 27.06.2025. The allegation is that on that day while she and the applicant were travelling in a car, the applicant, pretending love towards her kissed on her lips. The second instance of sexual assault was on 14.08.2025. It took place at the house of the applicant. She admitted that she voluntarily went along with the applicant in his car to his house, where they had sexual intercourse at 11.00 a.m. According to the victim, on that day, the applicant promised that he would marry her, and it was thereafter that they had sexual intercourse. She further stated that on the 25^th of the same month, they again had a physical relationship at his residence. The last incident was on 23.09.2025 in the applicant's car. Thereafter, on 26.12.2025, when the victim and the applicant were sitting in the car, a friend of the victim’s husband saw them and thereafter the husband of the victim knew about their relationship. It is admitted by the victim in the FI Statement that it was thereafter the present crime was registered. The victim concludes the FI Statement by stating that she consented to sexual intercourse with the applicant for the reason that the applicant promised to marry her, but admittedly, the victim is a married woman. It is now settled that, where the victim is a married woman and both parties are aware of their marital status, promise of marriage cannot be legally enforceable or capable of being acted upon and therefore cannot vitiate consent to constitute rape. Recently, the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh [2026 KHC OnLine 7052] has held that rape on false promise of marriage would not lie where the victim is a married woman. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-

arre