[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Rahul B.R vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

BA No.14427/2025




                                                  2026:KER:12785
                              -:1:-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

 THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947

                   BAIL APPL. NO. 14427 OF 2025

         CRIME NO.1750/2025 OF Nemom Police Station,
                      Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

           RAHUL B.R
           AGED 36 YEARS
           S/O RAJENDRA KURUP ATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU MUNDAPALLI
           PARAKOOTTAM P.O
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691551

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.S.RAJEEV
           SRI.V.VINAY
           SRI.M.S.ANEER
           SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
           SHRI.SARATH K.P.
           SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
           SMT.DIPA V.
           SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
           SHRI.AZAD SUNIL
           SHRI.T.P.ARAVIND
           SHRI.MAHESWAR PADICKAL
           SMT.AKSHARA S.
 BA No.14427/2025




                                                2026:KER:12785
                            -:2:-

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

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

    2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           NEMOM POLICE STATION, NEMOM P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695020

    3      XXXXXXXXXX
           XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX IS IMPLEADED AS THE
           ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED
           21.01.2026 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2026 IN BA
           NO.14427/2025

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.T.A.SHAJI, DGP
           SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH FOR ADDL.R3
           SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. TO DGP
           SHRI.VISHNU CHANDRAN
           SHRI. RALPH RETI JOHN
           SHRI.GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
           SMT.GEETHU T.A.
           SMT.MARY GREESHMA
           SMT.LIZ JOHNY
           SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
           SHRI.ABHIJITH P.S
           SMT.DEVIKA MANOJ


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2026,  THE   COURT   ON  12.02.2026   DELIVERED  THE
FOLLOWING:
 BA No.14427/2025




                                                         2026:KER:12785
                                  -:3:-


                                                                  "C.R."

                                 ORDER

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS), seeking pre-

arrest bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime

No.1750/2025 of Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

District (reregistered as Crime Branch Crime No.4275/CB/CU-

1/TVPM/R/2025 on 12/12/2025). The 3 rd respondent is the de facto

complainant/victim. The accused No.2 is the friend of the accused

No.1.

3. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections

64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m), 89, 115(2) and 351(3), r/w Section

3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS)

and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for

short, the IT Act).

2026:KER:12785

4. The applicant is a politician and Member of the

Legislative Assembly representing Palakkad constituency. He is a

36-year-old bachelor. The 3rd respondent is a journalist working in

a TV channel. She is a 27-year-old married woman; according to

her, she is living separately from her husband due to marital

discord. The prosecution alleges that the applicant established a

friendship with the 3rd respondent, who was estranged from her

husband, by communicating directly via messages on platforms

like Facebook, WhatsApp and Telegram. Subsequently, the

applicant feigned emotional support and promised lifelong

togetherness to her. Based on these promises, the applicant

engaged in sexual intercourse with her multiple times at his flat

in Palakkad on 27/1/2025 and 28/1/2025. Later, on 4/3/2025, at

the 3rd respondent's rented apartment in Thrikkannapuram,

Thiruvananthapuram, the applicant again engaged in sexual

intercourse with her. Following this, on 17/3/2025, the applicant

threatened the 3rd respondent and recorded her nude visuals on

his mobile phone and compelled her for oral sex. When the 3 rd

2026:KER:12785

respondent became pregnant, and the applicant became aware

of it, he forcefully and brutally raped her again at her apartment

in Thrikkannapuram on 22/4/2025. On the same day, he gave her

two pregnancy aborting tablets named Mifepristone and

Misoprostol and threatened her that he would commit suicide if

she did not consume the tablets. Again, the 3 rd respondent was

sexually assaulted in the last week of May 2025 at the flat of the

applicant at Palakkad. Following instructions from the applicant,

the accused No.2 procured abortion pills and personally delivered

them to the 3rd respondent on 30/5/2025. The applicant then

coerced her through WhatsApp chats to consume the pills and

through a WhatsApp video call to terminate the pregnancy.

5. The crime was initially registered by Valiyamala Police

Station, Thiruvananthapuram as Crime No.896/2025 for the

offences under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m), 89, 115(2)

and 351(3), r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66E of the IT

Act based on the complaint sent by the 3 rd respondent to the

Chief Minister of Kerala. Since the place of occurrence was within

2026:KER:12785

the Nemon Police Station limits, the case was transferred to

Nemon Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram city. On 28/11/2025,

the Station House Officer, Nemom Police Station, the 2 nd

respondent, reregistered the crime as Crime No.1750/2025 and

submitted the original FIR before the Judicial First-Class

Magistrate Court- VII, Neyyattinkara. On the same day, the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- III, Neyyatinkara, recorded

the statement of the 3rd respondent under Section 183 of the

BNSS. The further investigation was entrusted to ACP, DCRB,

Thiruvananthapuram City, as per the order of the Deputy

Inspector General and Commissioner of Police,

Thiruvananthapuram. He took up the investigation on

29/11/2025. On 11/12/2025, the investigation was entrusted to

the State Crime Branch. The Crime Branch reregistered the crime

as Crime Branch Crime No.4275/CB/CU-1/TVPM/R/2025 on

12/12/2025. As part of the investigation, a Special Investigation

Team was constituted. Now the investigation is in progress.

6. Apprehending arrest, the applicant filed an application

2026:KER:12785

for pre-arrest bail as Crl.M.C.No.3585/2025 before the Sessions

Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The accused No.2 also filed a similar

application for pre-arrest bail as Crl. M.C No. 3660/2025. The

application filed by the accused No.2 was allowed, and pre-arrest

bail was granted to him as per the order dated 3/1/2026. The

application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant was dismissed

by the Sessions Court as per the order dated 4/12/2025

(Annexure III). It is thereafter that the applicant has approached

this Court with the above application for pre-arrest bail. This

court, as per the order dated 6/12/2025, granted interim

protection from arrest to the applicant. It is still in force.

7. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Director General of

Prosecution (DGP) and Sri.John S.Ralph, the learned counsel for

the 3rd respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant, Sri.S.Rajeev

submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the crime. The learned counsel further submitted

2026:KER:12785

that the allegations against the applicant at the most would

reflect only a consensual relationship between two adults, and

hence an offence of rape would not be attracted. Relying on

Annexures 5 to 7 transcripts of the WhatsApp chats between the

3rd respondent and the accused No.2, it was argued that the 3 rd

respondent consumed pills for abortion voluntarily, and hence

Section 89 of the BNS is not attracted. The learned counsel

further submitted that though the incidents of rape and assault

were alleged to have occurred between March 2025 and May

2025, the 3rd respondent never rushed to the police station and

on the other hand, she gave the complaint only on 27/11/2025,

that too to the Chief Minister. The learned counsel also submitted

that the applicant is a promising political leader of the youth

congress and the case against him is completely politically

motivated, initiated at the instance of the ruling political party

and the 3rd respondent, whose husband is a district leader of the

BJP. On the aforesaid basis, it was urged that further custodial

interrogation of the applicant is not warranted and that he is

2026:KER:12785

willing to cooperate with the investigation.

9. Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned DGP, vehemently opposed

the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is

necessary as the allegations are serious. He further submitted

that in the investigation, sufficient evidence was collected against

the applicant, and the offences alleged being serious and

heinous, the grant of pre-arrest bail will not only prejudice the

investigation but will also send a wrong signal to society. The

learned DGP further submitted that the mobile phone used by the

applicant for recording the nude videos of the 3 rd respondent has

to be recovered and examined, the potency test of the applicant

is to be conducted, and for the said purpose, the arrest of the

applicant is necessary. The applicant, who is a sitting MLA and a

powerful person, will destroy the evidence and influence the

witnesses if he is granted pre-arrest bail. In such circumstances,

the benefit of pre-arrest bail ought not to be granted to the

applicant, submitted the learned DGP.

10. Sri. John S. Ralph, the learned counsel for the 3 rd

2026:KER:12785

respondent, argued that the allegations against the applicant

transcend a mere instance of sexual assault and disclose acts

amounting to aggravated sexual violence, characterised by

perverse conduct and extreme sexual brutality. The nature and

manner of the acts alleged prima facie reveal disturbing and

sadistic proclivities on the part of the applicant. These acts,

compounded by criminal intimidation employed with the object of

compelling the 3rd respondent to undergo an abortion, ultimately

caused her complete emotional and psychological breakdown,

submitted the learned counsel. The learned counsel added that

the applicant is in the habit of developing sexual relationships

with women in distress who are in troubled marriages or

separated from their spouses, which is evident from the fact that

three FIRs have been registered against him, all reflecting a

consistent pattern of abuse, torture and coercion, including

forced abortion.

11. Section 482 of BNSS (438 of Cr.P.C.) has conferred a

discretionary right on the Sessions Court and High Court to

2026:KER:12785

consider pre-arrest bail which ought to be granted under

particular circumstances of a case. The discretion conferred on

the superior courts of law, though not controlled by any specific

guidelines, is not to be exercised arbitrarily. Law adjures such

courts to utilise their trained discretion while considering an

application for pre-arrest bail (Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala, 2022

(4) KLT 24). Pre-arrest bail requires courts to balance protecting

individual liberty against ensuring an unhindered investigation,

preventing both unjustified detention and undue interference with

the law enforcement. The two Constitutional Benches of the

Supreme Court in [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,

(1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT

of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1] after considering the entire

gamut of law relating to pre-arrest bail, held that while

considering an application for anticipatory bail, the court must be

granted by considerations such as nature and gravity of the

offences, the role attributed to the applicant, the facts of the

case, the character of evidence, position and status of the

2026:KER:12785

accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood

of the accused being fled from justice and repeating the offence,

the possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and

obstructing with the cause of justice. Seriousness of the

allegation or the availability of the material in support thereof are

not the only considerations for declining anticipatory bail ( Vinod

Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 11 SCC 502).

12. The 3rd respondent categorically stated both in the FIS

and in her statement recorded before the learned Magistrate

under Section 183 of BNSS, that she had been in an intimate

relationship with the applicant since January 2025. She further

stated that the genesis of the relationship could be traced to a

friend request sent by the applicant on Facebook, pursuant to

which he obtained her mobile phone number and thereafter

initiated contact with her, being the first to place telephonic as

well as video calls. That was a time she was living separately

from her husband. Over time, the friendship became an intimate

bond and turned into a physical relationship. She admitted that

2026:KER:12785

on the previous day of her birthday, i.e., on 27/1/2025, she went

to the flat of the applicant at Palakkad and stayed there for two

days. During the said stay, they had consensual sexual

intercourse multiple times. She further admitted that she had

consensual sex with the applicant on 4/3/2025 at her rented

apartment in Thrikkannapuram. However, it was alleged that on

that day, the applicant bit all over her body and slapped her face.

After the said date, she missed her periods suggesting pregnancy.

According to the 3rd respondent, the first incident of assault took

place on 17/3/2025 when the applicant visited her at her

apartment. It is alleged that immediately upon his arrival, the

applicant interrogated her as to whether she had disclosed their

relationship to any third party. Upon her denial, the applicant

became enraged, forcibly dragged her into the bedroom, pushed

her onto the bed, coerced her into removing all her clothes and

recorded the nude video. It is further alleged that, thereafter, on

5/4/2025, she conducted a pregnancy test and confirmed that

she was pregnant.

2026:KER:12785

13. The first incident of sexual assault alleged by the 3 rd

respondent was on 22/4/2025, at her apartment. It is alleged that

on that day, the applicant subjected her to repeated acts of

sexual assault throughout the day, knowing well that she was

pregnant and physically weak. It is further alleged that on the

same day, he gave her two pregnancy aborting tablets and

threatened her that he would commit suicide if she did not

consume the tablets. The second incident of sexual assault

alleged by the 3rd respondent was in the last week of May, 2025

without specifying any particular date, at the flat of the applicant

at Palakkad. It is alleged that the 3 rd respondent went to Palakkad

and stayed at his flat for two days, and during the said stay, the

applicant forcefully sexually assaulted her. She further stated that

the applicant persisted in attempting to coerce her into

consuming the abortion pill, which she steadfastly refused.

Thereafter, the applicant reiterated his threats, stating that he

would pay with his own life should she refuse to undergo an

abortion. According to her, acting under sustained intimidation

2026:KER:12785

and coercion arising from repeated threats of suicide made by

the applicant, she was compelled to consume the medication

against her will on 30/5/2025.

14. The non-bailable offences alleged against the

applicant are Section 64(2)(f) of the BNS (rape by a relative,

guardian or teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority

towards the woman), Section 64(2)(h) of the BNS (rape on a

woman knowing her to be pregnant), Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS

(repeated act of rape on the same woman), and Section 89 of the

BNS (causing miscarriage without the woman's consent). The

incidents constituting the offence of rape [Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)

(h), 64(2)(m) and 89] were alleged to have taken place on

22/4/2025 at the apartment of the 3rd respondent and in the last

week of May, 2025 at the flat of the applicant. The incident

constituting the offence of causing forced miscarriage had taken

place on 30/5/2025. Out of the rest of the incidents, the sexual

intercourse took place on 27/1/2025 and 28/1/2025 at the flat of

the applicant at Palakkad, were purely consensual in nature and

2026:KER:12785

no offence was attracted. The sexual intercourse that took place

on 4/3/2025 at the apartment of the 3 rd respondent was also

consensual in nature. The other allegation that the applicant bit

on the body of the 3rd respondent and slapped her face on that

day would only attract the offence under Section 115 (2) of the

BNS, which is bailable in nature. Similarly, the incident that took

place on 17/3/2025 at the apartment of the 3 rd respondent would

attract the offence under Section 351(3) of the BNS and Section

66E of the IT Act, which are also bailable in nature.

15. While the 3rd respondent alleges that the sexual

intercourse on 22/4/2025 and in the last week of May, 2025 was

against her will, without her consent and forceful in nature, the

applicant asserts that they were purely consensual in nature and

a romantic relationship between him and the 3 rd respondent has

been converted into a case of rape without any basis, merely

because subsequently the relationship turned sour. The learned

Sessions Judge did not specifically enter into a finding whether

the alleged sexual acts between the applicant and the 3 rd

2026:KER:12785

respondent were consensual or non-consensual. On the other

hand, the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 16 of Annexure -III

order observed that the allegation of rape initially with the

consent and thereafter against the will of the 3 rd respondent and

without her consent is not supported by any material. Holding so,

the learned Sessions Judge went on to consider the allegation of

forced miscarriage and concluded that there are prima facie

materials to show instances of causing miscarriage by the

applicant without the consent of the 3rd respondent; hence

Section 89 of the BNS is attracted, and accordingly the bail was

rejected.

16. The two incidents of alleged sexual assault that

occurred on 22/4/2025 and in the last week of May 2025 should

not be viewed in isolation to determine whether they are

consensual or non-consensual. Instead, the entire relationship

between the applicant and the 3 rd respondent, from January 2025

until 27/11/2025, when the 3rd respondent filed a complaint

against the applicant, must be considered holistically to

2026:KER:12785

understand the true nature of their relationship to assess whether

the applicant has made a case for pre-arrest bail. It is

acknowledged that the 3rd respondent was a married woman who

developed an intimate relationship with the applicant while her

marriage was ongoing. The marriage of the 3 rd respondent took

place on 22/8/2024. She became acquainted with the applicant in

January 2025. Although the 3 rd respondent contended that her

marriage lasted only four days, this claim is proven false upon

examining Ext.P2, a photograph dated 8/1/2025, produced by the

applicant. The 3rd respondent admitted that her initial brief

interactions with the applicant quickly developed into a deeply

committed relationship and on 27/1/2025, she voluntarily

travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Palakkad and stayed at the

applicant's flat for two days, during which she had multiple

consensual sexual encounters with him. She further

acknowledged that, at the applicant's request, she leased an

apartment in Thrikkannapuram, Thiruvananthapuram, and had

consensual sex there on 4/3/2025. She also confirmed that she

2026:KER:12785

became pregnant, which was confirmed on 5/4/2025. The two

incidents of forced sexual assault are alleged to have occurred

thereafter.

17. According to the 3rd respondent, the applicant

allegedly subjected her to forceful sexual assault without consent

on four to five occasions on 22/4/2025 and thereafter compelled

her to consume tablets to terminate the pregnancy. However, in

the last week of May 2025, the 3 rd respondent voluntarily visited

the applicant's flat at Palakkad and stayed there for two days.

She claims that despite being mentally disturbed after the

incident on 22/4/2025, she went to the applicant's flat again at

his request. It appears improbable that the 3 rd respondent, having

suffered such a brutal assault on 22/4/2025, would willingly visit

and stay at the applicant's residence within a month. She further

alleges that another act of forceful sexual assault occurred during

that stay, yet she continued to remain in the flat for two days

without asserting that she attempted to leave but was restrained.

This conduct prima facie suggests the existence of a consensual

2026:KER:12785

sexual relationship, though the matter requires final adjudication

at trial.

18. It is difficult to believe that the 3rd respondent, being a

married and mature woman, would invite the applicant to her

apartment and subsequently travel to Palakkad to stay with him

unless she was willing to engage in a physical relationship. The

absence of any contemporaneous complaint on these occasions

reinforces this inference. Moreover, the WhatsApp chats between

the applicant and the 3 rd respondent, as well as between the 3 rd

respondent and the accused No. 2, reveal an intense personal

relationship and do not indicate any element of coercion or force.

Taken together, these circumstances point towards the likelihood

of consensual sexual intercourse on 22/4/2025 and again in the

last week of May 2025.

19. Not every instance of consensual sexual intercourse in

a failed relationship can be characterised as rape. Where two

adults voluntarily consent to engage in sexual relations and

continue such activity over a prolonged period, it can only be

2026:KER:12785

construed as an act of mutual choice or promiscuity, not as

sexual assault by one partner against the other. The Supreme

Court has expressed serious concern over the recent trend of

invoking rape laws to criminalise the breakdown of consensual

relationships. In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and

Another [(2024) 11 SCC 398], the Court observed a disturbing

tendency to treat long-standing consensual relationships as

criminal once they collapse. Similarly, in Prashant v. State of NCT

of Delhi [(2025) 5 SCC 764], it was held that the mere breakup of

a relationship between consenting adults cannot justify the

initiation of criminal proceedings. Most recently, in Pramod Kumar

Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh [2026 KLT OnLine 1217 (SC)],

the Court emphasised that the offence of rape, being of the

gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases involving genuine

sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. The Court

has thus condemned the practice of converting every soured

relationship into an allegation of rape, cautioning against the

misuse of the criminal justice system for personal grievances.

2026:KER:12785

20. Taking into account the circumstances discussed

above, I am not persuaded that the sexual relationship, which

both parties admit to having maintained, was devoid of the 3 rd

respondent's consent, as she now alleges.

21. It is undisputed that the 3rd respondent terminated her

pregnancy by consuming tablets supplied by accused No. 2.

According to her, this was the result of continuous pressure,

threats, and coercion exerted by the applicant and accused No. 2.

In support of this allegation, reliance has been placed on the

WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the 3 rd respondent

including the voice clips which is described in the mahazar. The

said chats indicate that the applicant was unwilling to continue

with the pregnancy and insisted that the 3rd respondent should

undergo an abortion. However, when considered alongside

Annexures 5 to 7 transcripts of the WhatsApp chats between the

accused No. 2 and the 3rd respondent, it appears that the 3rd

respondent ultimately consented to terminate the pregnancy.

Annexures 5 to 7 WhatsApp chats further reveals that the 3rd

2026:KER:12785

respondent herself requested tablets for abortion, shared her

location, and received the medicine from the accused No.2.

These circumstances prima facie suggest that the 3rd respondent

voluntarily consumed the pills. For Section 89 of the BNS to be

attracted, the act must have occurred without the woman's

consent. Whether such consent was vitiated by force, coercion, or

undue influence as alleged by the 3 rd respondent is a matter to be

established through evidence during trial.

22. The learned DGP submitted that the applicant is in the

habit of committing sexual assault against women through the

same modus operandi, and three other FIRs filed against him

would substantiate the same. Admittedly, all three of those

crimes were registered after the registration of the present crime.

Thus, it cannot be treated as criminal antecedents. The moral

virtues or the lack of them in a person accused of an offence

cannot be the criterion for determining the legality of any issue

raised against him before a court of law. Law and morality are not

equivalent to each other. That apart, it is settled that criminal

2026:KER:12785

antecedents are not a bar to grant pre-arrest bail to an accused if

he is otherwise entitled to it.

23. The learned DGP further submitted that the mobile

phone used by the applicant for recording the nude videos of the

3rd respondent has to be recovered and examined, and for the

said purpose, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is

necessary. In Sushila Aggarwal (supra), it was held by the

Supreme Court that "limited custody" or "deemed custody"

would be sufficient in appropriate cases to facilitate the

requirements of the investigating authority, including for fulfilling

the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the

applicant can be directed to produce his mobile phone before the

investigating officer. The prosecution has not been able to

convince this court that custodial interrogation is necessary for

any other purpose.

24. On consideration of the above-mentioned

circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant ought to be

given the benefit of pre-arrest bail, subject to the condition of

2026:KER:12785

limited custody to the investigating officer as contemplated in the

decision of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal (supra).

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the following

conditions:

(i) The applicant shall appear before the investigating

officer on 16/2/2026 at 10:00 a.m. for interrogation.

(ii) He shall surrender his mobile phone/s before the

investigating officer on that day.

(iii) The applicant can be interrogated for the next three

days from 10.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m. every day, if required, after

giving adequate intervals.

(iv) The applicant shall be deemed to be under custody

during the aforesaid period for facilitating the requirements of

investigation, including to undergo medical examination or

potency test.

(v) If the investigating officer intends to arrest the

applicant, then he shall be released on bail on executing a bond

for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties

2026:KER:12785

each for the like sum each before the investigating officer.

(vi) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the

investigation.

(vii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating

officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Second

Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the

investigating officer as and when required.

(viii) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like

nature while on bail.

(ix) The applicant shall not attempt to contact the 3 rd

respondent or any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or

through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with

the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related

to the investigation.

(x) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without

the permission of the trial Court.

(xi) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any,

before the investigating officer.

2026:KER:12785

(xii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of bail

conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the

bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional trial court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp

2026:KER:12785

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14427 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure I THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN MAHESH DAMU KARE V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Annexure II THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX IN JOTHIRAGAVAN V. THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS Annexure III THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT IN CRL MC NO.3585/2025 DATED 4.12.2025 Annexure IV CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.1750/2025 OF NEMON POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WOUND INFLICTED BY THE ACCUSED DATED 4/3/2025.

Annexure R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT WHERE THE ACCUSED STATES HIS DESIRE TO HAVE A CHILD WITH THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT, DATED FEBRUARY 2025 Annexure R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WOUNDS INFLICTED BY THE ACCUSED DURING THE RAPE WHILE THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT WAS PREGNANT, DATED 24.4.2025.

Annexure R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT WHERE THE ACCUSED THREATENS TO COMMIT SUICIDE, DATED MAY 2025 Annexure R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT WHERE THE ACCUSED DEMANDS THAT THE CHAT BE DELETED

2026:KER:12785

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 5 A TRUE COPY OF HTE SCREEN RECORDING OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT ON 30/5/2025 BETWEEN 2ND ACCUSED AND VICTIM ANNEXURE 6 THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ANNEXURE 5 WHATSAPP CHAT DATED 30.5.2025 BETWEEN 2ND ACCUSED AND VICTIM ANNEXURE 7 THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUDIO MESSAGES DATED 30.5.2025 AT 9.28 AM AND 9.29 AM Annexure-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 IN BA NO 43/2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS, PATHANAMTHITTA