Anticipatory Bail: Consent in a Subsisting Marriage Cannot be Considered False Promise of Marriage: Kerala High Court
In a pivotal decision, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 22-year-old man accused under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code including 354, 376, and 506. The Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P., while rendering the judgment, made an important observation: “when one of the parties is in a subsisting marriage, it could not be said that consent for sexual relationship was obtained on the false promise of marriage.”
The case involved Shiva Moorthy, a 22-year-old student, who was accused of committing various offences against a woman under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and emphasized his young age and the victim’s existing marital status as grounds for his innocence.
Represented by a team of advocates, including Vijay Sankar V.H. and Saqib Rizwan, the defense pointed to the victim’s marital history, stating that she had induced the young man into a relationship. The Public Prosecutor, however, argued that the woman, aged 34, was compelled into a sexual relationship by the petitioner on the promise of marriage.
Justice Gopinath, in his decision, cited the previous judgment of the same court in the case of Tino Thankachan V. State of Kerala, reiterating that “when one of the parties is in a subsisting marriage, it could not be said that consent for sexual relationship was obtained on the false promise of marriage.”
As a result, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to strict conditions that include a bond of Rs. 50,000 and appearing before the investigating officer on specified dates.
This ruling brings into focus the complex issues surrounding consent and marital status, particularly when charges of false promises are involved. Legal experts believe that this case sets a precedent that may influence future cases involving similar circumstances.
Date of Decision: 30 October 2023
SHIVA MOORTHY VS STATE OF KERALA
