Court Finds No Prima Facie Evidence of Rape or Intimidation; Accused Directed to Cooperate with Investigation
In a significant ruling on September 17, 2025, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Gopinath P, granted anticipatory bail to Rahul M R and his brother, the accused in a case under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court found prima facie no offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which had been alleged in the complaint.
The case, registered as Crime No.482/2025 by the Maradu Police Station, involved allegations of rape under false promise of marriage and criminal intimidation. The first accused, Rahul M R, was alleged to have maintained a long-term consensual relationship with the complainant, which he later withdrew from, purportedly breaking his promise of marriage. The second accused, his brother, was accused of threatening the complainant.
Justice Gopinath P, referencing precedents such as Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala, noted a troubling trend of consensual relationships being later characterized as rape. He emphasized that the subsisting marriage of the complainant undermines the accusation of rape on false promise of marriage, thereby not sustaining the charge under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
Regarding the SC/ST Act allegations, the court highlighted that Section 18 does not apply where no prima facie offence under the Act is made out. Additionally, the court observed that the maximum penalty under Section 506 IPC is seven years, which does not meet the ten-year threshold required for Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to apply.
The judgment mandates the accused to cooperate with the investigation, avoid tampering with evidence, and comply with bond and surety requirements. They are required to appear before the Investigating Officer on specified dates and refrain from any criminal activity while on bail.
This judgment follows the principles established by the Supreme Court in cases like Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, affirming that anticipatory bail may be granted where accusations under the SC/ST Act lack prima facie merit.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail granted to accused in a case under IPC and SC/ST Act; court finds prima facie no offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act made out.
Statutory provision(s): Section 376(2)(n) IPC, Section 506 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Section 438 CrPC
The decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that allegations are thoroughly scrutinized before denying anticipatory bail, especially in complex cases involving consensual relationships and accusations under special statutes.
Rahul M R v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2781874
