Kerala High Court
Pranav Salimon vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
CRIME NO.110/2025 OF Pampady Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
PRANAV SALIMON
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O SALIMON RESIDING AT VALIYAKULATHIL,
KADAPPOOR, KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM,, PIN - 686587
BY ADV K.RAJESH KANNAN
RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PAMPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PINCODE 686502, PIN - 686502
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3108 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.110/2025 of Pampady Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 323, 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner
with fraudulent and dishonest intention of deceiving the defacto
complainant, gave her a false promise of marriage and during
the period from June 2021 to December 2024, he committed
sexual intercourse with her and raped her at the rented house
at Moolepeedika in Manarcadu village, at the Focus Residency
near Carithas hospital, Kandathil Lodge near Shastri Road, a
rented house in Athirampuzha in Amalagiri and thereafter
refused to marry her. Hence it is alleged that the accused
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is aged 22 years and admittedly the victim is two
years older than the petitioner. The counsel submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is a consensual
sexual intercourse. The counsel further submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused
the First Information Statement given by the victim. A perusal
of the same would show that there is long standing sexual
relationship between the petitioner and the victim. According
to the victim, it is based on a promise to marry. Admittedly the
petitioner is aged only 22 years and the victim is aged 24. It is
alleged that after the sexual relationship for years, the
horoscopes of the petitioner and the victim were compared and
found that it is not matching. It is alleged that the petitioner
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
withdrew from the relationship. Hence the present complaint is
filed. The Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State
of Maharashtra and Another [2024 INSC 897] considered
the same issue. The relevant portion of the above judgment is
extracted hereunder:
"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
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
consideration, it cannot be said that there was
vitiation of consent under misconception of fact."
7. The Apex Court in Manish Yadav v. State of
Utter Pradesh & Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 363] again
considered the same issue. The relevant portion of the above
judgment is extracted hereunder:
"18. Applying the above principle to the case at hand,
it is clearly discernible that in the present case, the
complainant had agreed to indulge in intimate
relations with the appellant on the accord of her own
desires and not on the basis of any false promise of
marriage made by the appellant. Therefore, while the
present case may involve a breach of promise, it does
not constitute a case of an inherently false promise to
marry. Based on the circumstances, it cannot be
concluded that the appellant obtained the
complainant's consent to engage in a physical
relationship under the pretext of a false promise of
marriage.
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."
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Apex
Court, this Court perused the First Information Statement once
again. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
8. 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.
9. 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
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
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 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."
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
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.
11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent
conditions.
Therefore, 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.
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.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The petitioner shall co-operate
with the investigation and shall not, directly
or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which he is accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
6. Needless to mention, it would be well within
the powers of the investigating officer to
investigate the matter and, if necessary, to
effect recoveries on the information, if any,
given by the petitioner even while the
petitioner is on bail as laid down by the
2025:KER:22515
BAIL APPL. NO. 3108 OF 2025
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020
(1) KHC 663].
7. The observations and findings in this order is
only for the purpose of deciding this bail
application. The principle laid down by this
Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala
[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in
this case also.
8. If any of the above conditions are violated by
the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
though the bail is granted by this Court. The
prosecution and the victim are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel
the bail, if any of the above conditions are
violated.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
