The Kerala High Court gave anticipatory bail to a 24-year-old man who was accused of rape. The Court found that the woman had willingly entered into a relationship with him and stayed with him at hotels. It said such consensual relationships should not later be treated as rape just because things didn’t work out.
Brief Facts of the Case
- A young man met a married woman through Instagram and Snapchat.
- She travelled on her own from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode to meet him.
- They stayed together in hotels at Wayanad and Tirur on 3rd and 4th November 2024.
- The woman filed a rape complaint almost 5 months later.
- The man, fearing arrest, applied for anticipatory bail.
Legal Provisions Involved in the Case
- Section 64(1), BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita): Deals with the offence of rape.
- Section 438, CrPC: Allows a person to seek protection from arrest before they are actually arrested.
- The Court also referred to several important Supreme Court cases that talk about misuse of rape laws and guidelines for anticipatory bail.
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner (Accused):
- Said the relationship was mutual and consensual.
- The woman came to meet him and stayed with him by her own choice.
- Since she is married, the question of any false promise of marriage doesn’t arise.
- Said the 5-month delay in filing the complaint raises serious doubts.
Prosecution:
- Claimed the woman was sexually assaulted during the stay.
- Asked for custodial interrogation of the accused.
Court’s Observations:
- The woman voluntarily travelled and stayed with the accused, which clearly showed that it was not a forced act.
- Since she is married, she could not claim she was deceived by a promise of marriage.
- The FIR was filed after a long delay, with no proper explanation.
- The court stated that people should not turn personal relationship issues into criminal cases.
- Arresting someone based only on such a complaint, without solid evidence, can do serious harm to their life and future.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
The Court allowed anticipatory bail but added conditions:
- The accused must appear before the investigating officer on specific dates.
- If the police still decide to arrest him, he must furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties.
- He must not threaten or contact the complainant or interfere in the investigation.
- He must cooperate fully and not commit any similar offences.
My Perspective:
Reading this case hit a nerve. As someone who listens to stories from men every day — students, professionals, husbands, brothers — this situation feels all too familiar. A young man, full of hope, builds a connection with someone. There’s mutual interest, time spent together, and often, intimacy. But when the relationship ends, for whatever personal reason, he’s suddenly at the receiving end of a rape charge.
This case is particularly troubling. The woman was already married. She travelled hundreds of kilometres by herself. She stayed with him in hotels — not once, but twice — over two days. There was no complaint at that time. And yet, five months later, he finds himself accused of rape. I ask — what changed? Did the facts change, or just the feelings?
It’s scary how a consensual relationship can suddenly be rewritten as a criminal act based solely on one person’s statement — long after the events took place. There is no CCTV footage, no physical evidence, no contemporaneous complaint. Just words. And these words have the power to send someone to jail, ruin his reputation, and destroy his future.
What worries me most is that the law doesn’t seem to offer any protection from this kind of misuse. Once a man is accused, he is judged. By society. By employers. Sometimes even by the police, before they’ve fully investigated. And even if he’s innocent, he has to go through years of court battles to prove it. No one gives him those years back.
I’m not saying real crimes don’t happen — they do, and they should be punished. But we must also be honest: false cases exist, and they harm not only the accused but also real victims, whose voices are diluted by this noise. Every time a false case is filed, it chips away at the credibility of genuine survivors and weakens the very purpose of the law.
Many men don’t speak up. They suffer in silence — out of shame, fear, or the belief that no one will listen. But it’s time we start talking. It’s time we stop assuming guilt just because of gender. And it’s time we demand that relationships, especially those between consenting adults, be kept out of criminal courtrooms unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Final Thoughts:
This judgment is a reminder that the legal system must act carefully in cases involving personal relationships. Every accusation should be taken seriously — but also examined thoroughly. False cases don’t just hurt the accused; they also weaken real cases by creating doubt.
It’s time we discuss how to protect both — the dignity of genuine victims and the rights of those wrongly accused. Because real justice doesn’t take sides — it listens, investigates, and then decides.
Read Complete Judgement Here