Sarath v. State of Kerala
In the High Court of Kerala
B.A. 9028/2021
Before Justice Gopinath P.
Decided on December 21, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving rape on the false pretext of marriage and circulation of intimate pictures

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67, 77B)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 375, 376(1), 376(2)(n), 354C, 354D)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner and the de-facto complainant met over social media. Thereafter, they entered into a relationship on the pretext of marriage.
• The petitioner received intimate pictures of the complainant. He further circulated these pictures.
• After subjecting her to a sexual relationship, the petitioner withdrew from the promise of marriage and thereby committed the alleged offences. The petitioner now requests bail.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations against the petitioner are false. Even if the whole FIR is true, the petitioner and the complainant had entered into a consensual relationship. The possibility of false promise of marriage cannot exist as the complainant was already married. As per Section 77B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 67 is bailable.
• The public prosecutor submitted that the allegations were serious. As per the FIR, the complainant and her husband had separated 11 years ago. Hence, the petitioner’s contention on the possibility of false promise of marriage is wrong. When the petitioner obtained the complainant’s consent on the false pretext of marriage, it amounted to rape. Further, the petitioner circulated her pictures, an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Hence, the petitioner’s contention on this is wrong. When the petitioner got the woman’s consent for sexual activity on the false pretext of marriage, it amounted to rape. The police has sent the electronic devices for forensic examination. Granting bail to the police at this stage may affect the investigation.

Opinion of the Bench

• The petitioner has been in custody for more than 41 days. Continued detention is not necessary for further investigation.

Final Decision

• The bench accepted the bail application.

Julia Anna Joseph, an undergraduate student at Christ (Deemed to be University), prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.