The question as to whether the promise was false at the inception in the facts of the case needs to be determined in the trial. It is settled law that where the promise of marriage is false at the inception an offence of rape is attracted, if sexual relationships are entered into on the basis of such false promise and same was upheld by High Court of Kerala though the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. in the case of LATHEEF MURSHID vs. STATE OF KERALA (BAIL APPL. NO. 1990 OF 2022) on 21st March 22, 2022.
Brief facts of the case are that the allegations allegation against the petitioner is that on the false promise of marriage, the petitioner entered into a relationship with the victim and thereafter took her to various places and committed rape on her and thereafter intimidated her by stating that her intimate pictures will be shared on social media.
Petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner is an MBBS Graduate, who is now a House Surgeon and that the victim is a 3rd year BDS student. Petitioner had every intention of marrying the victim and had entered into a relationship with her only with such intention. It is submitted that the petitioner had to later withdraw from his promise of marriage owing to the peculiar behaviour of the victim. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 17 days and his continued detention will cause great prejudice to him.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. The circumstances of the case appearing against the petitioner are pointed out from the record. It is submitted that going by the First Information Statement of the victim, the petitioner had clearly committed the offences alleged against him.
Regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court granted bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. It is settled law that, where the promise of marriage is false at the inception, an offence of rape is attracted, if sexual relationships are entered into on the basis of such false promise. The question as to whether the promise was false at the inception in the facts of this case is a matter to be determined in the trial. The further detention of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary for the purposes of any investigation.
Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh