The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that rape charges will not be attracted against a man merely because the relationship between him and a woman turned sour over time while allowing bail plea application moved by a Central Government Counsel in a sexual assault case.

The Court was adjudicating upon a bail application moved by a Central Government Counsel of the State, Advocate Navneeth N Nath who was arrested last month after a sexual abuse complaint was lodged against him by a colleague.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that the relationships have evolved over time and that young adults these days have a different outlook on romantic relationships but that the fact that the relationship did not work out will not attract the offence of rape.

“A relationship turning sour at a later point of time will not amount to rape. In the present social context, we have live-in relationships and open marriages…Practically speaking, the age of marriage has also changed now. Girls aged 28 and 29 years are not ready to get married these days. They are enjoying their independence. New generation children don’t always want to marry, they don’t want to have children. But the difficulty that arises is that allegations of rape surface after these relationships turn sour,” said the court.

The Court added that “this change in relationships has led to an increasing number of rape allegations being raised after these couples break up and marry others. However, this does not always imply that one of the partners was forced into having sexual relationship on a false promise to marry”.

The Judge highlighted that in such cases, the crucial aspect to be considered is whether consent for sexual intercourse was obtained on the promise of marriage.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted bail subject to some conditions observing that although the offences alleged against him are serious, it was improbable that he would flee from justice since he is stated to be a central government counsel.

“It can be appreciated that though the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious, still, the possibility of him fleeing from justice is remote especially since he is stated to be a Central Government Counsel. The further factors like the arguable points on the merits of the case, the absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the absence of the requirement of any further recovery, and the fact that the investigation is practically completed, all lean in favour of the petitioner being released on bail.”

The Court also clarified that the observations made in the order are purely for the purpose of considering the bail application and shall not have any effect on the merits of the case in any other proceeding.

The petitioner was arrested last month under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, after a sexual abuse complaint was lodged against him by a colleague who alleged that he sexually abused her, with a false promise of marriage.

The complainant submitted that they were in a relationship over the last 4 years. However, she found that he was getting married to another woman when she saw him and his fiancee at a hotel. The complainant allegedly attempted suicide soon after this by slitting her wrist and was hospitalised immediately.

The prosecution further alleged that during the course of the investigation it was revealed that the victim was forced to undergo two miscarriages at the instigation of the petitioner and hence section 313 IPC was also incorporated.

The incident came to light when she gave a statement to the police officers explaining the reason behind her suicide attempt. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested.

The court emphasised that rape charges will not be attracted against a man merely because the relationship between him and a woman turned sour over time. Justice Thomas highlighted that in such cases, the crucial aspect to be considered was whether consent for sexual intercourse was obtained on the promise of marriage.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Chander instructed by Advocate C.P. Udayabhanu appearing for the petitioner argued that he intended to marry the de facto complainant and that the sexual relationship between them was completely consensual.

On the other hand, Advocate John S Ralph appearing for the de-facto complainant had submitted that their sexual relationship was based on an absolute promise to marry which has now proved to be false.

The Public Prosecutor had also opposed the application citing that whatever consent was obtained was based on a misconception of facts and that the offence of rape will be attracted in this case.

Case Title: Navaneeth N Nath v State of Kerala