Contaminated evidence withholding need not necessarily result in adverse inference if prosecution case is proved by other cogent evidence.

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.416/2026 of Kazhakuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant with the intention and preparation to commit rape on the victim took her to the hotelroom of Capital Park, Kazhakuttam and forcefully engaged in sexual intercourse with her on a false promise of marriage on 11.7.2025 at 11.00 pm. Later, on 24.07.2025 and on 31.07.2025, the applicant called the victim to his house on the pretext of discussing their marriage with his parents and again forcefully engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant 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 present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 11.04.2026. The investigation is almost over. The applicant is aged 25 years and the victim is aged 23 years. A reading of the FIS would show that they were in a relationship and they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -