XXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen J

This  appeal  has  been  filed  at  the  instance  of  the sole accused in Crime No. 81 of 2026, Nagaroor Police Station, challenging the order dated 02.03.2026 in Crl.M.C.No.7/2026, whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant/accused was dismissed by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PoA) Act', for short), Nedumangad.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the defacto complainant appeared in person and the learned counsel appearing for her and perused the order impugned.

In this case, the prosecution alleges commission  of  offences  under  Section  69  of  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the appellant/accused.

The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant (a member of the Scheduled Caste community),  and  the  appellant  (who  does  not  belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community)  got  acquainted  with  each  other  one  year ago and have maintained love affair for the past six months. The appellant is a neighbour of the defacto complainant. It is alleged further that the appellant made a promise to marry the defacto complainant, and  in  pursuance  of the  same,  at  about  11.30  p.m., on 03.02.2026, the appellant took the defacto complainant to his house, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse with assurance that he would marry her.  Thereafter  on  04.02.2026,  in  the  early  morning, while they were sitting at the Railway Station, Kazhakuttom, they were taken to the police station, where the appellant agreed to stay with the defacto complainant at her house. Pursuant to the undertaking, the appellant and the defacto complainant  went  to  the  defacto  complainant's  house. It is alleged further that  at  1.30 p.m., on  05.02.2026, defacto complainant was again subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant at her house repeating promise of marriage and the appellant left the defacto complainant's  house,  at  6.30  p.m.,  on  the  same  day, under  the  pretext  of taking  his  Aadhaar  card  for  the purpose of registering their marriage. It is alleged that thereafter,  he  neither  returned  back  nor  attended  her calls. Thus, the appellant retracted from his promise to marry the defacto complainant.

The  learned counsel  for  the  appellant argued that the prosecution records would reveal that the defacto complainant and the appellant have been in love  relationship  and  even  the  appellant  was  ready  to marry the defacto complainant, he could not solemnize the marriage, due to the objection raised by his parents. It is pointed out that since the relationship is consensual, none of the alleged offences would get attracted, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail, and the finding  of  the  Special  Court  that  prima  facie  offences alleged were made out warrants interference, by allowing this appeal.

The  defacto  complainant  appeared  in  person and narrated the incident in detail as stated in the First Information Statement. According to her, the appellant  maintained  love  relationship  with  her  on  the promise of marriage and thereafter, at 11.30 p.m., on 03.02.2026, she was taken to the appellant's house and  subjected  to  sexual  intercourse  on  the  assurance of marriage. It was done again at 1.30 p.m., on 05.02.2026, at the residence of the defacto complainant and thereafter, the appellant left the house of the defacto complainant on the pretext of taking his Aadhaar card for the registration of marriage, making her to believe that the marriage would be registered. Thereafter, the appellant could not be contacted and he deviated from the promise of marriage. This version of the defacto complainant is reiterated by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well as by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, while opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the  defacto  complainant  and  the  learned Senior  Public Prosecutor is that in the instant case the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(PoA) Act would apply and therefore, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

On a perusal of the prosecution records, it could be seen that the defacto complainant and the appellant had been in a love relationship and thereafter, they had sexual intercourse on 03.02.2026, at the residence of the appellant; and thereafter, on 05.02.2026, at the residence of the defacto complainant, on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the appellant deviated from the promise of marriage and even failed to contact the defacto complainant. In this matter, both parties are unmarried and are fit to solemnise their marriage. Therefore, the promise of marriage and the act of subjecting the defacto complainant for sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage would prima facie  constitute  the  offences  alleged  to  be  committed by the appellant. Thus, in this case, the prosecution allegations are made out prima facie, where the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(PoA) Act straight away would attract and in such a case, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant cannot be considered.

Thus it is found that the learned Special Judge  is  right  in  negating  the  plea  of  anticipatory  bail and the order under challenge is liable to be confirmed.

In the result, this criminal appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be a direction to the appellant/accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer or in the event of failure to surrender, the Investigating Officer is free to arrest the  appellant/accused  and  proceed  under  law,  as  part of the investigation to accomplish eventful investigation and successful prosecution.