Introduction:

The Kerala High Court in the case XXX v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 9593 of 2025, citation 2021 LiveLaw (Ker) 538, presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, delivered a significant ruling on the legal validity of allegations of sexual intercourse obtained on the pretext of a false promise of marriage when the complainant is already in a subsisting marriage. The case involved a petitioner who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, accused of sexually assaulting a woman under the pretext of marriage. The prosecution alleged that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant existed from 2016 until July 2025, during which period the petitioner allegedly maintained a sexual relationship with the complainant by promising marriage and even cohabited with her. However, complications arose when the petitioner married another woman in January 2025, which prompted the complainant to file allegations of sexual assault on the ground of false promise of marriage. The defense countered that the complainant was herself in an existing marriage that was never legally dissolved, thereby negating the foundation of the allegation. After careful consideration, the High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner with conditions, holding that the legal basis of such allegations cannot stand when the complainant is already married, at least prima facie.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by counsels Muhammed Zain Shabeer and P. P. Shibu Babu, argued that the prosecution’s case was legally unsustainable due to the subsisting marriage of the complainant. The defense highlighted that the very foundation of the complainant’s allegation—that sexual intercourse was induced by a false promise of marriage—was untenable since the complainant was already married to another man, and her marriage was not legally dissolved despite separation. The defense contended that under law, a promise of marriage cannot exist in circumstances where the complainant is not legally free to enter into a marital relationship. Thus, the allegation of sexual assault on this ground was invalid. The petitioner further argued that the complainant had been in a consensual relationship with him for nearly a decade and had cohabited with him at several places. Therefore, the allegations of coercion or sexual assault under false pretenses lacked credibility. Additionally, the defense stressed that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and posed no threat to the process of justice. Since he was a police officer, he had a stable occupation and roots in society, which significantly reduced the risk of absconding. The petitioner also undertook to fully cooperate with ongoing investigations and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The prosecution, represented by counsel Prasanth M. P. (Public Prosecutor), contended that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and could not be lightly brushed aside. It was argued that the petitioner had exploited his position as a police officer and maintained a relationship with the complainant for nearly nine years by falsely promising marriage. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner not only cohabited with the complainant but also subjected her to repeated instances of sexual intercourse under the false assurance that he would marry her, thereby committing sexual assault under the pretext of marriage. The prosecution further contended that the petitioner’s subsequent marriage to another woman in January 2025 was an act of betrayal, which reinforced the false nature of his promise to the complainant. Moreover, the prosecution asserted that the gravity of the allegations demanded serious consideration, and custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the complete truth, gather evidence of the relationship, and prevent possible tampering with witnesses. The prosecution emphasized that the complainant had lived with the petitioner until July 2025, suggesting that the promise of marriage was continuous and ongoing until his marriage to another woman. It was also argued that granting bail could adversely impact the victim and the investigation process, considering the petitioner’s influence as a police officer.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, after carefully analyzing the submissions of both sides, observed that while the allegations were indeed serious, the fundamental legal issue that arose was whether sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage could legally exist when the complainant was already in a subsisting marriage. The Court noted that the complainant had admitted to being married to another man, though separated, and that her marriage had not been legally dissolved. In such circumstances, the Court held that the allegation of sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was unsustainable in law, at least prima facie. The Court drew support from the Supreme Court precedent in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2020 (5) SCC 1, wherein the apex court had clarified important principles surrounding the grant of bail and the nature of false promise of marriage cases. Applying those principles, the Kerala High Court held that since the complainant was legally married to another man, the alleged promise of marriage by the petitioner could not legally exist.

The Court also observed that the investigation revealed the complainant had cohabited with the petitioner until July 2025, and during that time, the petitioner married another woman in January 2025. While this indicated an ongoing relationship, it did not alter the legal fact that the complainant was not free to contract another marriage. Hence, her consent to sexual relations based on such a promise was not vitiated by law. The Court further held that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate the necessity of custodial interrogation. Given the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, his professional background, and his societal standing, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

Accordingly, the Kerala High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. The conditions included that the petitioner must cooperate with the investigation, present himself for interrogation whenever required, refrain from contacting the complainant, and remain in India unless specifically permitted by the Court. By imposing these conditions, the Court balanced the interests of justice, ensuring that the investigation would not be hampered while simultaneously protecting the rights of the accused.

The judgment underscored the principle that criminal law cannot sustain allegations that are legally untenable. In this case, since the complainant was already bound by an undissolved marriage, her claim of being induced into sexual relations by a false promise of marriage was legally implausible. The Court’s reasoning clarified that while moral and ethical concerns may persist, criminal liability cannot be imposed in circumstances where the fundamental legal ingredients of the offense are absent. This case thus reaffirmed the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships, moral improprieties, and criminal conduct under the law.