Kerala High Court
Saud Sathar vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:77521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1710 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1525/2025 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 IN CRMP NO.1525 OF
2025 OF SPECIAL COURT- OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT,1989,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SAUD SATHAR,
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SATHAR,
RESIDING AT KUNJIPARAMBIL,
KADUVAMUZHI, ERATTUPETTAH,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686121
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
SMT.ANJU DONY
RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:77521
Crl.A. No.1710 of 2025
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.A. No.1710 of 2025
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the accused in Crime No.275 of 2025 of
Thrikkakara Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart
from Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989.
2. According to the prosecution, the accused had induced the
victim to engage in sexual intercourse with him under a promise of
marriage from January 2022 to January 2024, and she became
pregnant, and thereafter he forced her to abort the pregnancy. Later,
the accused backed out of the promise to marry, and thereby
committed the offences alleged.
3. Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath, the learned counsel for the
appellant, contended that the prosecution allegations are false, and
even if the entire allegations are assumed for arguments sake to be
true, still, it would only reveal few instances of consensual sexual
intercourse. The learned counsel further submitted that the victim is a
divorcee, having a child, and that she had voluntarily accompanied the
accused to various places, even as per the prosecution case, and
therefore, custodial interrogation ought not to be permitted. The
2025:KER:77521
learned counsel also submitted that the appellant is presently working
in Dubai and that the crime has been registered for the purpose of
coercing the appellant to yield to the victim's illegal demands.
4. Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, submitted that the allegations are serious and that custodial
interrogation of the appellant is necessary. It was also submitted that
as per the statement of the victim, the appellant had taken her to
various resorts and hotels and even made her live with him from
January 2025, promising to marry her, and thereafter, blocked the
victim from contacting him, and thus, he clearly committed the offences
alleged, and hence, custodial interrogation is necessary.
5. Though notice to the victim was served through the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara, on 30.09.2025 none
appears.
6. The victim is concededly a divorcee and has a child
through her earlier marriage, while the appellant is a youngster. The
prosecution allegations indicate that the victim and the appellant had
been to different places and indulged in sexual intercourse on various
occasions for the last three years. The victim had even lived with the
appellant for a long period. She claims to have become pregnant three
times and on all those occasions she aborted the pregnancy; of course,
allegedly under the compulsion of the appellant.
7. In the decision in Prashant V. State of NCT, Delhi [2024
2025:KER:77521
INSC 879], the Supreme Court has observed that merely because a
relationship did not crystallize into a marriage is not a reason to assume
that the physical intimacy between the parties should be treated as
rape. In the decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of
Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471], it was observed that longer
the duration of physical relationship between partners without protest
and insistence by the female partner for marriage, it would be
indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based
on a false promise of marriage.
8. Moreover, if one of the parties had willingly travelled to
different hotels and indulged in sexual intercourse, it cannot be stated
that those acts will amount to rape as contemplated under law. Even
the long period of cohabitation by itself cannot give rise to any promise
of marriage, especially in these times of living together relationships.
9. In this context, it is necessary to observe that a mere
breach of promise cannot amount to an offence and it is only when the
initial promise itself was false, the sexual intercourse on the basis of
such a promise will amount to an offence under law. In the instant
case, the question whether the initial promise was false or not is a
matter to be identified during investigation. For that purpose, custodial
interrogation is not necessary.
10. In the decision in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1], it was held that
2025:KER:77521
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought
to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity
of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the
case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of
conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on
facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court. It was
also observed that for the purpose of completing the investigation, in
appropriate cases limited custody can be granted.
11. Having regard to the above circumstances as well as the
proposition laid down in Sushila Aggarwal's case (Supra), I am of the
view that applicant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to
conditions of limited custody for the purpose of completing the
investigation. It is pointed out that the appellant is presently outside
India and is arriving in India on 21.10.2025.
12. In view of the above, the criminal appeal is allowed on the
following conditions:
(a) Appellant shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on 27.10.2025 from 10.00 am to 05.00 pm
and if required, again on 28.10.2025 from 10.00 am
to 05.00 pm and shall subject himself to
interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the appellant, then, he shall be
released on bail on him executing a bond for
2025:KER:77521
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum before the
Investigating Officer.
(c) Appellant shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when required and shall also co-
operate with the investigation.
(d) Appellant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence
or contact the victim or her family members.
(e) Appellant shall not commit any similar offences while
she is on bail.
(f) Appellant shall not leave India without the permission
of the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional
Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding
the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jka/17.10.25.
2025:KER:77521
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID TICKET DATED
06.10.2025
