-
by sayum
07 October 2026 6:40 AM
"‘Deceitful means’ shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 29, 2026, held that the suppression of a subsisting live-in relationship and the existence of a child born therefrom at the time of proposing marriage constitutes "deceitful means" under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
A bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that such suppression, which induces the victim to engage in sexual intercourse under the premise of a future marriage, brings the act within the ambit of the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS.
The appellant was the first accused in a case registered at Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode, for offences including those under Section 69 of the BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was already involved in a live-in relationship and had a child, suppressed these facts while performing a marriage fixation ceremony with the defacto complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community. Following the fixation, the appellant allegedly induced the complainant to engage in sexual intercourse by promising marriage, only for his previous relationship to be discovered later.
The primary question before the court was whether the suppression of a prior relationship and a child born therefrom constitutes "deceitful means" under Section 69 of the BNS, even if the accused claims intent to marry. The court was further called upon to determine whether the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act against the grant of anticipatory bail was applicable in the present circumstances, given the prima facie evidence of the alleged offences.
Interpretation of Section 69 BNS
The court meticulously analyzed the scope of Section 69 of the BNS, which punishes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it. The bench highlighted that the explanation to Section 69 explicitly includes "marrying by suppressing identity" as a form of deceitful means. The court held that the appellant’s conduct of suppressing his existing family ties while inducing the victim to consent to sexual relations falls squarely within this statutory definition.
Application of SC/ST (PoA) Act
The bench observed that the offences under the BNS are linked to the scheduled offences appended to the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Consequently, where the prosecution records prima facie reveal the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act are naturally attracted. This finding reinforces the strict liability framework intended by the legislature when dealing with crimes against members of marginalized communities.
Necessity of Custodial Interrogation
The court emphasized the operational requirement of investigation in such sensitive cases. Justice Badharudeen noted that the state's submission regarding the need for custodial interrogation to conduct procedures like potency tests and recovery of evidence was compelling. The court held that granting anticipatory bail in such a factual matrix would impede the progress of the investigation and could potentially lead to the destruction of vital evidence.
Final Directions and Conclusion
Concluding that the offence was prima facie made out and that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act was applicable, the Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant was directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith, failing which the police were granted liberty to proceed with the arrest and investigation. This ruling clarifies that matrimonial deceit involving the suppression of identity or existing relationships is treated with high legal severity under the new criminal code.
Date of Decision: 29 September 2026
