Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi Khan vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:61493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
CRIME NO.293/2025 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.06.2025 IN CRMC NO.1676
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED RAFI KHAN, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. LATE MUHAMMED UMMER KHAN,
FLAT NO.2, 1ST FLOOR, SHRISHTI ENCLAVE,
NEAR CPM PARTY OFFICE, RASC ROAD,
VYTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019.
BY ADV SHRI.MOHAMMED SIYAD M.F.
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MARADU POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 304.
3 BINSIYA FARHANA ( IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 )
D/O MUGHAMMED ISHAQUE, AGED 30 YEARS, VALIYAPEEDIKKAL
HOUSE, NELLIKUTHU, PAYYANADU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM AND
NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO-210, CSM VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA ( IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS
PER ORDER DTD 14/7/25 IN CRL MA 1/25)
BY ADVS. SMT.ANJALI G.KRISHNAN
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:61493
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.8205 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.293/2024 of Maradu Police Station,
Ernakulam, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 354,
376, and 376(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution allegations in the FIR is that the accused became
acquainted with the defacto complainant in March 2020 onwards and
committed rape on her under a false promise of marriage from November
2020 till Decemeber 2022; and thereafter also repeatedly raped her and
even collected an amount of more than Rs.50,00,000/- from her under
one pretext or the other and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. I have heard Sri.Mohammed Siyad M.F., the learned counsel for the
petitioner, as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor,
and Smt. Anjali G. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the defacto
complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been
falsely arrayed as an accused and that the alleged incident had not
occurred. It was also submitted that petitioner and the defacto
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:61493
complainant were in a romantic relationship after becoming acquainted
with each other. It was further submitted that the defacto complainant
married another person on 22.12.2024, and therefore, the allegations of
rape pursuant to a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained, as the
petitioner continues to remain an unmarried person. The learned counsel
pointed out that out of the amount received by the petitioner,
Rs.30,00,000/- has already been repaid and if at all any balance amount
is due, it can only be Rs.12,00,000/- and not as claimed by the defacto
complainant.
6. Smt. Anjali G.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant,
submitted that this is a classic instance of a woman being deceived after
promising to marry and also an instance of cheating her by collecting a
large amount of money. The learned counsel further pointed out that
though the defacto complainant was raped pursuant to a false promise of
marriage, she fell into a trauma and on realising that the petitioner had
no intention to abide by the promise of marriage, her family members
insisted that she get married to another person so that she will be able to
overcome the trauma. According to the learned counsel, petitioner had
induced her to transfer a large amount of money under one pretext or
the other and the same has also not been returned.
7. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are
serious in nature and hence custodial interrogation is essential.
8. I have considered the rival contentions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:61493
9. Petitioner and the defacto complainant became acquainted with each
other in 2020, and thereafter they engaged in physical relationship on
several occasions. While the defacto complainant alleges that she was
induced into the physical relationship pursuant to the promise of
marriage, petitioner contends that there was no such promise of
marriage. However, the fact remains that the defacto complainant
married another person in 2024, while the petitioner continues to remain
unmarried. The allegations do prima facie indicate that there could have
a break up in the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto
complainant. A mere break up of a relationship between a consenting
couple cannot convert the physical relationship between them to be
given the colour of rape or as sexual intercourse with a promise of
marriage, especially in the light of the long period of relationship that the
parties have had.
10. In a recent decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra
and Another [2024 SCC Online SC 3471], it was observed that longer
the duration of physical relationship between partners without protest
and insistence by the female partner for marriage, it would be indicative
of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on a false
promise of marriage. In Prashant v. NCT of Delhi [AIR 2025 SC 33]
also, the Supreme Court observed that merely because a relationship did
not crystallize into a marriage, that is not a reason to assume that the
physical intimacy between the parties should be treated as rape.
11. Further, in Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs. State of Maharashtra &
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
5
2025:KER:61493
Another [2025 INSC 782] the Supreme Court had observed that a
consensual relationship turning sour at a later point in time or partners
becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery
of the State and that such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots
the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
12. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am of the view that
though the allegations are serious, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is not necessary. As far as the allegations of financial
transaction is concerned, offence under Sections 420 of 406 of IPC have
not been incorporated and therefore the same is a matter to be identified
during the course of investigation.
13. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision in Ashok Kumar v.
State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274],
wherein it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the
prosecution while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial
interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would
have to show or indicate more than a prima facie case as to why
custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of
investigation. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to
convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary.
14. In view of the nature of allegations though they are serious, I am of
the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary
and limited custody would suffice the investigation.
15. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
6
2025:KER:61493
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
on 25.08.2025 between 10 am to 5 pm and again on
26.08.2025 during the same time and shall subject himself
to interrogation. The said period shall be deemed to be
limited custody for the purpose of completing the
investigation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes
to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on
him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand
only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum
before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact
the defacto complainant until conclusion of trial.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he
is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not travel out of India without the
permission of the Jurisdictional court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, or if any modification
or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall
be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
7
2025:KER:61493
orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been
granted by this Court.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/14/08/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2025
8
2025:KER:61493
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8205/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR A
PERIOD FROM 1.1.2020 TO 15.4.2025 IN A/C.
NO. 617402010005645 IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, VYTTILA
BRANCH
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL NO.13115 ISSUED BY ST.
JOHN’S COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, KARAMMOD DATED
21.04.2025
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
SISTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SHO,
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 23.4.2025
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF COMPLAINT DATED 25.4.2025 ISSUED BY
MANGALAPURAM POLICE
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C. NO.1676
OF 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 23.6.2025
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STAEMENT FOR A
PERIOD FROM 01.01.2021 TO 01.04.2025 THROUGH
ACCOUNT NUMBER 5010101002099 IN THE NAME OF
3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT WITH
CANARA BANK, MANJERI MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH
ANNEXURE R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STAEMENT FOR A
PERIOD FROM 01.03.2020 TO 31.03.2025 THROUGH
ACCOUNT NUMBER 13650100238648 IN THE NAME OF
3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT WITH
FEDERAL BANK, MANJERI BRANCH