- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- S.69 BNS | Married Woman Can't...
S.69 BNS | Married Woman Can't Allege Coercion Into Sexual Intercourse On False Promise To Marry: Kerala High Court
K. Salma Jennath
4 July 2025 1:03 PM IST
The Kerala High Court has recently granted regular bail to a man, who was accused to have enticed a married woman to enter into sexual intercourse with him on a false promise of marriage.A crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 84 [Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman] and 69 [Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.] of...
The Kerala High Court has recently granted regular bail to a man, who was accused to have enticed a married woman to enter into sexual intercourse with him on a false promise of marriage.
A crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 84 [Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman] and 69 [Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner sexually assaulted the complainant, who was a married woman, on a false promise of marriage. Afterwards, he threatened to publish her photos and videos, and borrowed an amount of 2.5 lakhs, it was alleged.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressed doubts as to whether an offence under Section 69 can be attracted when the defacto complainant is a married woman.
The Court relied on the findings in Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala (2021) and Ranjith v. State of Kerala (2022) and observed:
“Once the admitted case of the prosecution itself is that the de facto complainant is a married women, there cannot be sexual intercourse with the promise of marriage...If both of the parties are aware about a subsistent marriage it cannot be alleged that the sexual intercourse between them was with a promise to marry.”
The Court also observed that it would have to take into consideration the entire circumstances in the case to ascertain whether the relationship was consensual or not, which was difficult at this juncture.
Noting that Section 84 is a bailable offence, the Court opined that there is no need for continued detention of the petitioner.
Further, the Court also clarified that the observations made in the order were solely for the purpose of deciding the application and would not have any bearing on the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Thus, the Court allowed the bail application.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Bail Appl. No. 7916 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
Counsel for the petitioner: Ameen Hassan K., Rebin Vincent Gralan
Counsel for the respondents: Noushad K.A., Public Prosecutor