Kerala High Court Says Relationship Turning Sour Later Is Not Rape; Grants Bail to Accused
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that rape charges cannot be applied just because a relationship between a man and woman went bad over time. The court allowed the bail plea of Advocate Navneeth N Nath, a Central Government Counsel, who was arrested last month in a sexual assault case filed by a colleague.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that relationships today have changed, and young adults often have a different view on romantic ties. He said that just because a relationship failed later does not mean the man committed rape.
The judge explained, “A relationship turning sour later will not amount to rape. In today’s society, there are live-in relationships and open marriages. Many young women in their late twenties prefer independence and may not want to marry or have children immediately. But after breakups, false rape allegations sometimes arise.”
The court also pointed out that many rape allegations come up only after couples separate and marry others. However, this does not always mean one partner was forced into sex with a false promise of marriage.
Justice Thomas emphasized that in such cases, the key question is whether consent to sex was given based on a promise of marriage.
The bail was granted with some conditions. The court said the accused is unlikely to flee since he is a Central Government Counsel. The investigation is almost complete, and the accused has no criminal history.
The judge clarified that the comments made during bail consideration do not affect the final outcome of the case.
The accused was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of the Indian Penal Code after a colleague filed a complaint of sexual abuse with a false promise of marriage. The complainant said they were in a relationship for four years but later found out the accused was marrying someone else. She attempted suicide after this and was hospitalized.
The prosecution also alleged that the victim was forced to have two miscarriages due to the accused’s actions, which led to the additional charge under Section 313 IPC.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Chander, representing the accused, said the sexual relationship was fully consensual and that the accused planned to marry the complainant.
The complainant’s lawyer argued that the sexual relationship was based on a clear promise to marry, which was not kept.
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, saying the consent was based on false facts, and rape charges should apply.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
