Kerala High Court

R. Krishnakumar vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                 2025:KER:30081
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                   BAIL APPL. NO. 1699 OF 2025

        CRIME NO.1375/2024 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION,

                       Thiruvananthapuram

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.142 OF 2025

OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/S:

            R. KRISHNAKUMAR
            AGED 49 YEARS
            S/O. V.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, 9D, BEACON TERRACE,
            MANNANTHALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695015

            BY ADVS.
            P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
            K.SUDHINKUMAR
            SABU PULLAN
            GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
            R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
            BHARATH MOHAN
            K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, PIN - 682031

    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            PIN - 695015
                                                         2025:KER:30081
BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

                                     2
     3       XXXXXXXXXX
             XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

             BY ADV B.THARIF
             SR PP-NOUSHAD K A


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025,      THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                           2025:KER:30081
BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

                                       3
                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------
                      B.A.No.1699 of 2025
                    -------------------------------
               Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025

                                 ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime

No.1375/2024 of Mannathala Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable

under Sections 376, 323, 324 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC).

3. The prosecution case is that, during 2019, the

petitioner got acquainted with the defacto complainant, who

was residing near to the house of the petitioner. Both the

petitioner as well as the defacto complainant are married and

both of them have children. It is alleged that they got

acquainted, and on 13.03.2020 at about 07:00p.m., the

petitioner reached the house of the defacto complainant

compelled her to drink an intoxicated liquid, made her to 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

believe that the same is wine. Thereafter, the petitioner

sexually assaulted the defacto complainant without her

consent. It is alleged that the petitioner promised to marry

her and thereafter, there is continuous sexual relationship

between the petitioner and the defacto complainant at

different places at different dates. The petitioner is not ready

to marry the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that

the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

even if the entire allegations are accepted, the relationship is

only consensual, no criminal offence is made out. The counsel

for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is ready to abide

by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. The counsel appearing for the defacto

complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The

counsel submitted that there was a promise from the side of

the petitioner and that is why the defacto complainant gave 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

consent for the sexual intercourse. He submitted that,

petitioner cheated the defacto complainant. He also

submitted that the petitioner cheated other ladies also. This

Court may not grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail

application. He also made available the FIS given by the

defacto complainant.

8. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused

the FIS given by the defacto complainant. The Apex Court in

Manish Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

[2025 SCC OnLine SC 363], observed like this:

" 22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present case appears to be one where a consensual physical relationship between two adults has turned sour due to certain intervening events. Hence, allowing the prosecution of the appellant for the offences mentioned above would tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of law and nothing else."

9. The Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare V.

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr [2024 LiveLaw (SC)

921], observed like this:

2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

" 22. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact."

10. Keeping in mind the above principle, this

Court perused the prosecution case. I am of the considered

opinion that, the petitioner can be released on bail after

imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the

petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on two

days continuously from 10:00 am to 04:00pm., and 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

thereafter, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to

the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner on bail.

11. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that

the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of

Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all

the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence

relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of

bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure

that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

12. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353]

considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the

above judgment is extracted hereunder.

"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."

13. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of

Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed

that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it

is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.

Considering the dictum laid down in the above

decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following

directions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer within two weeks from

today and shall undergo interrogation. He

shall appear two days continuously from 2025:KER:30081 BAIL APPL. NO.1699 OF 2025

10:00 am to 04:00pm., after surrender.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating

Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he

shall be released on bail on executing a

bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with two solvent sureties

each for the like sum to the satisfaction of

the arresting officer concerned.