The Kerala High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a 39-year-old man accused of concealing his existing relationship and three-year-old child before fixing his marriage with a Dalit woman, holding that the alleged conduct prima facie amounts to sexual intercourse by deceitful means under section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice A Badharudee, on September 28, dismissed the appeal filed by Udayan, the first accused in a case registered at Feroke police station in Kozhikode, and directed him to surrender before the investigating officer. The court said that if he failed to surrender, the investigating officer was at liberty to arrest him and proceed with the investigation.
The case relates to allegations that Udayan had agreed to marry a Dalit woman while suppressing the fact that he was already in a relationship with another woman and had a three-year-old child from that relationship.
According to the prosecution, a marriage-fixation ceremony was held at the woman’s house on July 6, 2025, after both families had agreed to the proposed marriage. The woman’s family allegedly spent around Rs 10 lakh for the ceremony, which was attended by about 1,000 people.
After the marriage was fixed, the woman travelled to Wayanad expecting the marriage to take place and stayed at Almaj Residency. The prosecution alleged that Udayan compelled her to have sexual intercourse on the premise that they had already decided to marry.
The prosecution also alleged that the sexual relationship took place after Udayan had concealed his existing relationship and the child born from it.
Udayan’s counsel argued that section 318(4) of the BNS was not attracted as there was no delivery of property. It was also argued that section 69 would not apply because the provision, according to the defence, required a promise to marry followed by a subsequent withdrawal, whereas Udayan was still willing to marry the complainant.
The defence further contended that the mere existence of another relationship and a child could not, by itself, establish the offences and section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would therefore not apply.
The prosecution opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the complainant’s statement and additional statement. It argued that suppressing a relationship in the nature of marriage and a child born from that relationship amounted to “deceitful means” within the meaning of section 69 of the BNS.
The prosecution also submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary for a meaningful investigation, including recording the accused’s statement, effecting seizure and recovery of the clothes allegedly worn by him at the time of the incident, and conducting a potency examination.
The High Court examined section 69 of the BNS, which criminalises sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means, where the act does not amount to rape, as well as sexual intercourse following a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it. The provision carries imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine. Its explanation states that “deceitful means” includes inducement relating to employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.
The court said section 69 covers two distinct situations: sexual intercourse through deceitful means, and sexual intercourse following a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it. It held that the prosecution need only make out the alleged offences prima facie at this stage for the corresponding offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to be attracted.
In this case, the court found that the materials indicated that the marriage had been fixed on the premise that Udayan was unmarried and had no other relationship in the nature of marriage. The court noted that he was aware of his existing relationship and the child born from it, yet concealed both from the woman and her family.
The court held that the subsequent sexual intercourse, allegedly induced by the promise and premise of the proposed marriage while the earlier relationship was concealed, would prima facie fall within the first situation contemplated under section 69, sexual intercourse by deceitful means, even if the alleged act did not amount to rape.
The High Court also accepted the investigating officer’s contention that custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation. It observed that granting anticipatory bail in the circumstances could impede the investigation, particularly in relation to recording the accused’s statement and carrying out seizure, recovery and medical procedures.
The court therefore held that the offences were prima facie made out and that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applied. Consequently, Udayan was not entitled to anticipatory bail.