Offence of Rape on Promise of Marriage Under S.69 BNS Prima Facie Not Attracted if Complainant is Married: Kerala High Court

No Rape Charge on Marriage Promise if Complainant is Already Married: Kerala HC Grants Bail

Ernakulam, Kerala: The Kerala High Court, while granting bail to an accused, has observed that an offence of sexual assault on the false promise of marriage under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is prima facie doubtful if the complainant is already in a subsisting marriage. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas reasoned that a legally valid promise to marry cannot be made when one of the parties is already married.

The court was hearing a bail application filed by Sayoo S, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 755 of 2025 from Malappuram Police Station.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case against the petitioner, Sayoo S, alleged that he had sexually assaulted the de facto complainant after giving her a false promise of marriage. It was further alleged that he threatened to publish her private photos and videos and extorted a total of Rs. 2,50,000 from her. Consequently, he was charged under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including false promise of marriage) and 84 (enticing or taking away a married woman with criminal intent) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was arrested on June 13, 2025, and had been in custody since.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Counsel (Sri. Ameen Hassan K): The defence argued that the allegations were entirely false and fabricated. It was highlighted that since the complainant is a married woman, the premise of a "promise of marriage" is legally untenable. The counsel suggested that the case was primarily a financial dispute, and the serious allegation of rape was added merely to pressure the petitioner into settling the monetary claim.

Public Prosecutor (Sri. Noushad K A): The prosecution opposed the bail plea, contending that the allegations were serious in nature. It was argued that since the petitioner was arrested recently, his continued detention was necessary for the investigation to proceed unhindered.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas , after reviewing the case materials, including the victim's statement, focused on the complainant's marital status. The court noted that the prosecution itself had invoked Section 84 of the BNS, which deals with enticing a married woman, thereby admitting that the complainant was married.

The judgment heavily relied on established legal principles, citing previous rulings of the High Court in Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (1) KHC 435] and Ranjith v. State of Kerala [2022 (1) KLT 19] . These precedents established that a valid promise of marriage cannot exist when one of the parties is in a subsisting marriage.

"Once the admitted case of the prosecution itself is that the de facto complainant is a married women, there cannot be sexual intercourse with the promise of marriage... If both of the parties are aware about a subsistant marriage it cannot be alleged that the sexual intercourse between them was with a promise to marry." - the court observed.

Based on this reasoning, the court expressed prima facie doubt about the applicability of the offence under Section 69 BNS. Regarding the charge under Section 84 BNS, the court noted that it is a bailable offence, which weakened the case for continued custody.

Final Decision and Bail Conditions

Finding it a fit case for bail, the court granted the petitioner's application. The observations made in the order were clarified to be solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not influence any future stage of the proceedings.

Sayoo S was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties. The conditions imposed include cooperating with the investigation, not intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, not contacting the victim, and not leaving the country without court permission.