Sexual Assault Charge Under False Promise of Marriage Prima Facie Untenable if Victim Is in a Subsisting Marriage: Kerala High Court - 2025-08-25

Kerala HC Grants Bail to Police SI, Notes Sex on Promise of Marriage Charge Prima Facie Untenable if Victim is Already Married

Ernakulam, Kerala - The Kerala High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to a Sub Inspector of Police, has observed that an allegation of sexual assault on the pretext of a false promise of marriage cannot legally exist, at least prima facie, if the victim is already in a subsisting marriage with another person. The ruling was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas .

The court granted relief to Mahesh V.M., a Sub Inspector of Police, in a case registered under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which pertain to sexual assault.

Case Background

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Mahesh V.M., had sexually assaulted the victim multiple times between August 2016 and July 2025 at various locations under the promise of marriage. The case (Crime No. 915/2025) was registered at the Palakkad Town North Police Station.

The investigation revealed that the victim, who is a mother of three, was married to another man. In 2016, she reportedly left her husband to live with the petitioner. Despite being separated from her husband, her marriage was not legally dissolved. The petitioner and the victim allegedly lived together until July 2025. It was also alleged that the petitioner married another woman in January 2025 but continued his relationship with the victim.

Arguments Presented

The counsel for the petitioner argued that his client had been falsely implicated in the crime and denied any involvement.

Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, contending that the allegations were serious and warranted custodial interrogation of the accused.

Court’s Reasoning and Precedents

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made a crucial observation regarding the core allegation. The court noted, "Though the allegations are serious, since the victim is already in a subsisting marriage, allegation of sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage cannot legally exist, atleast prima facie."

The court further reasoned that the prosecution had not provided sufficient grounds to justify the need for custodial interrogation. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh (2024) , the bench reiterated that the State must do more than simply assert the need for custodial interrogation; it must demonstrate why it is essential for the investigation.

The court also relied on the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) , which guides courts to consider the nature and gravity of the offense and the applicant's role while deciding on anticipatory bail. Referring to the same judgment, the court directed the petitioner to subject himself to "limited custody" for the purpose of interrogation.

"In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. Having regard to the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. However he must subject himself to interrogation for the purpose of completing the investigation under a limited custody," the judgment stated.

Final Decision and Conditions

Finding no compelling reason for custodial interrogation, the High Court allowed the bail application. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail if arrested, subject to executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties.

The court imposed several conditions, including: * The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation on September 8 and 9, 2025, which will be considered as "limited custody." * He must cooperate fully with the investigation. * He is prohibited from intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, or contacting the victim and her family. * He must not commit similar offenses while on bail or leave the country without the court's permission.