BailNow.in News Snacks

Kerala HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea in Dalit Woman Deception Case

Court Rules Suppression of Relationship and Child Amounts to Sexual Intercourse by Deceit

Accused Ordered to Surrender; Investigation to Continue Under SC/ST Act

By Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 07, 2026:

The Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a 39-year-old man accused of deceiving a Dalit woman into sexual relations by concealing his existing relationship and child. The court held that such conduct prima facie amounts to sexual intercourse by “deceitful means” under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and directed the accused to surrender before the investigating officer.

Case Background

• Accused: Udayan, 39, first accused in a case registered at Feroke police station, Kozhikode.
• Allegations: He agreed to marry a Dalit woman while hiding that he was already in a relationship and had a three-year-old child.
• Marriage Ceremony: Held on July 6, 2025, attended by about 1,000 people; the woman’s family allegedly spent ₹10 lakh.
• Incident: After the ceremony, the woman travelled to Wayanad expecting marriage. At Almaj Residency, Udayan allegedly compelled her to have sexual intercourse on the premise that marriage was already decided.

Court’s Observations

• Judge: Justice A. Badharudee.
• Key Finding: Suppressing an existing relationship and child amounts to “deceitful means” under Section 69 BNS.
• Legal Context: Section 69 criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceit, including false promises of marriage.
• SC/ST Act: Section 18 bars anticipatory bail when prima facie offences under the Act are disclosed.

Defence Arguments

• Claimed Section 318(4) BNS (property delivery) not applicable.
• Argued Section 69 requires withdrawal of marriage promise, but Udayan was still willing to marry.
• Contended that mere existence of another relationship and child does not establish offence.
• Asserted SC/ST Act provisions should not apply.

Prosecution’s Stand

• Relied on complainant’s statements.
• Argued suppression of relationship and child constituted deceit.
• Sought custodial interrogation for seizure of clothes, potency examination, and recording of accused’s statement.

Implications

• Legal Principle: Consent obtained through deceit is invalid.
• Social Impact: Reinforces protection of Dalit women under SC/ST Act.
• Judicial Message: Courts will not tolerate exploitation disguised as marriage promises.

FAQs

Q1: Why was anticipatory bail denied?

Because the court found prima facie evidence of sexual intercourse by deceit, triggering Section 69 BNS and Section 18 SC/ST Act.

Q2: What does Section 69 BNS cover?

It criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means, including false promises of marriage.

Q3: What happens next?

The accused must surrender; police can arrest him if he fails. Investigation will continue.

Q4: Did the defence argue willingness to marry?

Yes, but the court ruled suppression of an existing relationship and child itself constituted deceit.

Q5: How does the SC/ST Act apply?

It bars anticipatory bail when offences against Scheduled Castes are prima facie established.