Consensual Relationships Aren't Rape Unless Deception Occurs from the Start: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail

Consensual Relationships Cannot Be Construed As Rape Unless False Promises Are Made With The Intent To Deceive At The Outset - Kerala High Court delivered a ruling in Renjith Raju Joseph v. State of Kerala, where the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The case involved allegations under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), accusing the petitioner of engaging in sexual intercourse with the survivor under the false promise of marriage. After evaluating the facts and legal precedents, the court granted pre-arrest bail, citing the consensual nature of the relationship and a lack of evidence to prove bad faith on the part of the petitioner.

The petitioner, Renjith Raju Joseph, a music academy owner, was accused of having sexual relations with the survivor on the pretext of marriage. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had promised to marry the survivor but withdrew the promise when she became pregnant. The survivor alleged that the petitioner, despite being married, falsely represented himself as willing to marry her, leading to their sexual relationship. The survivor subsequently lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of a case under Section 376(2)(n) IPC for repeated sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage.

The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual, and both parties had entered into an agreement to live together. He argued that he could not marry the survivor due to his subsisting marriage and claimed that the FIR was registered with ulterior motives after the survivor made unreasonable demands.

False Promise of Marriage and Consent: The court examined whether the petitioner's promise to marry was made in bad faith. It cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608], which held that a false promise to marry amounts to rape only if the promise was made with the intent to deceive from the outset. The court also referenced Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [2019 AIR (SC) 327], which drew a distinction between consensual sex and rape based on false promises.

"If the promise to marry was not false at the outset and the relationship was consensual, the offence of rape cannot be attributed."

Based on the materials on record, the court found that the relationship between the petitioner and the survivor was consensual and that the petitioner’s inability to marry due to his existing marriage did not amount to a false promise.

Delay in Filing the FIR: The court noted the delay in the registration of the FIR, which was filed only after the relationship between the petitioner and the survivor soured. The court remarked that the delay further raised doubts about the survivor's claims of a false promise, casting uncertainty over the prosecution's case.

Principles for Granting Pre-Arrest Bail: The court applied the principles for anticipatory bail as laid down in Bhadres Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat [2015 KHC 4579], which directs courts to carefully scrutinize allegations to ensure that they are not frivolous or aimed at harassment. The court found that the petitioner had made a valid case for bail, as the relationship was consensual and the allegations of false promise were not supported by sufficient evidence.

After considering the legal principles and the facts of the case, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

The court emphasized that these observations were made solely for the purpose of granting bail and would not affect the trial’s outcome.

Date of Decision: October 18, 2024

Renjith Raju Joseph v. State of Kerala