Regular bail can be granted when investigation has substantially progressed and further custody of the accused is not warranted.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2026 This criminal appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in crime No.174/2026 of North Police Station, Ernakulam, challenging order dated 18.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2026, rendered by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Though notice was served upon the de facto complainant directly through the Station House Officer concerned, she did not appear.

3. The prosecution case is that, the appellant/accused, with intention to exploit the de facto complainant sexually, took her to various hotels in Ernakulam on multiple occasions starting from 06.11.2025 and had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marrying her. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended in 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015’ for short) by the appellant/accused.

4. While impeaching the veracity of the order impugned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the relationship between the appellant and the de facto complainant was purely consensual in nature and therefore, none of the offences would attract prima facie. It is submitted further that the accused was arrested on 03.04.2026 and has been continuing in judicial custody thereafter. Further it is submitted that he has no criminal antecedents and the investigation has progressed much.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the submission that the prosecution records would prima facie establish the offences alleged. Therefore, the appellant/accused, who alleged to have committed serious offences, is not entitled for regular bail at this stage.

6. On scrutiny of the prosecution records, including the statement of the de facto complainant, it could be gathered that on the promise of marriage, the de facto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse on 25.02.2026, 06.11.2025 and on different dates during December 2025 is the crux of the allegation. It could be noticed from the records that the de facto complainant had reached the place of occurrences voluntarily. However, the prosecution case is that she was subjected to sexual molestation on the promise of marriage. But the appellant/accused would contend that the sexual intercourse is purely consensual in nature. In fact, the same is a matter of evidence and therefore, this aspect need not be considered by this Court at this stage.

6. On perusal of the case diary, it is discernible that the investigation has progressed much and further custody of the appellant/accused is not required for the purpose of effective investigation. In view of the factual aspects, I am of the view that, the appellant/accused is liable to be released on bail, subject to conditions, after setting aside the order impugned.

7. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.