Kerala High Court: In an appeal filed by the accused, challenging the order passed by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), a Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen, J., held that where the complainant was aware that the accused was already married, a promise to marry could not, prima facie, constitute a false promise of marriage under Section 69, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The Court further observed that, the FIR was registered only at a belated stage, after registration of another criminal case against the complainant, which raised doubts regarding the prima facie case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
Background
The accused was the Manager of Future Fly International Pvt. Ltd., while the complainant was employed as a staff member in the same company and belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. According to the prosecution, on 22 August 2025, the accused allegedly took the complainant to a villa, where he had sexual intercourse with her on the promise that he would divorce his wife and marry her. The complainant alleged that she consented to the sexual relationship solely on the strength of the said promise.
The prosecution further alleged that on 15 November 2025, when the complainant attended the birthday celebration of the accused’s son, the accused again demanded sexual intercourse. Upon her refusal, he allegedly threatened her by stating that she was not suitable for marriage but was suitable for continuing an extramarital relationship with him, and also abused her by uttering caste-based slurs. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3(1)(s) and (2)(va), SC/ST Act. The accused sought anticipatory bail before the Special Court, which was rejected on the ground that a prima facie case existed and that the statutory bar under Section 18, SC/ST Act applied.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the accused has approached this Court through the present appeal challenging the impugned order.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court examined the scope of Section 69 BNS and noted that the provision criminalises performing sexual intercourse by deceitful means with a woman without intention of fulfilling the same and doing sexual intercourse by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same. The Court observed that it is a legal necessity that a party offering a promise must be qualified to give the promise.
The Court noted that where a woman is fully aware that the man is already married, such a promise cannot ordinarily be regarded as one capable of inducing a legally enforceable expectation of marriage, since a married man cannot marry during subsistence of the earlier marriage so as to commit the offence of bigamy. Consequently, consensual sexual intercourse in such circumstances could not, at the prima facie stage, be treated as having been induced by deceitful means under Section 69 BNS.
The Court noted that the alleged first incident occurred in August 2025 and the FIR was registered only on 23 April 2026 prior to which another criminal case had already been registered against the complainant. Despite participating in proceedings relating to the earlier case, the complainant had made no allegation regarding the alleged sexual offence.
The Court observed that these circumstances lent some support to the accused’s contention that the present complaint may have been filed as a counterblast. While clarifying that these observations were only tentative, the Court held that they weakened the existence of a prima facie case necessary to attract the statutory embargo under Section 18, SC/ST Act.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and held that anticipatory bail could be granted without prejudicing the ongoing investigation. The Court further clarified that all observations made in the judgment were confined solely to the determination of the bail application and would not influence the investigation or the eventual trial.
[Akhil N.R. v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5661, decided on 12-6-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice A. Badharudeen
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Bharath R., Jerry Mathew, M.T. Sameer, Reghu Sreedharan, Rameez M. Azeez, Devika K.R., Athul P., Justin K.K.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sanal P. Raj
For the 2nd Respondent/De facto Complainant: Syam K.P., T.G. Sunil (Perumbavoor), Ashish Gopal K.G., P. Muhammed Shiyas, Vinimol V.S., Namitha Prasad, Liji Esahak
