Kerala High Court denies anticipatory bail to rape-accused who hid one crucial detail

The order added that the failure to disclose in the bail application that the accused was abroad at the time of filing the application alone would disqualify him from obtaining the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Rape, blackmail case

• The prosecution’s case is that the applicant/accused fell in love with the complainant while they were in college.
• In March 2017, the applicant made the complainant believe that he would marry her, and under the pretext of discussing it with his parents, he took her to his house, got her intoxicated and raped her.
• He recorded the sexual act on his mobile phone and then sexually harassed her at various places and on several occasions till July 2025 by threatening to publish the photos and videos.
• Following the complaint, the applicant was booked under sections 64(1)(punishment for rape), 64(2)(m)(punishment for repeated rape), 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means), 143(1)(f) (exploitation by inducement), and 143(2) (punishment for trafficking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), ߧ Section 66E (capturing/transmitting person’s private images without consent) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
• The petitioner’s advocates, M P Priyeshkumar and Shanavas Nalakath Randupurayil, submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
• The counsels further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime, hence he is entitled to bail.
• The senior public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as part of the applicant’s intentional criminal acts, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the investigation.

Justice Kauser Edappagath said perusal of the case diary indicates that the accusation against the applicant is very serious in nature.

Allegations serious: Order

• The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course.
• The power under Section 482 (bail to person apprehending arrest) of BNSS could be exercised only when a special case is made out.
• Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part.
• It is reported that the applicant is abroad. The question whether the presence of the accused in India is necessary at the time of filing the application for pre-arrest bail was considered by the division bench of the Kerala High Court in another case.
• It was held that the mere fact that an accused was in a foreign country when filing an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC does not make the application not maintainable.
• It was further held that when an accused who is abroad files an application for pre-arrest bail, the court may examine the factual submissions of both sides to determine if the accused has a genuine fear of arrest in a non-bailable offence, and decide whether discretion should be exercised in his favour or not.

Non-disclosure of location

• The failure to disclose in the bail application that the accused was abroad at the time of filing the application would disqualify him from obtaining the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, the Kerala High Court held.
• If an accused conceals that he was abroad when filing the application, that alone is enough for the court to decline to exercise its discretion under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code/Section 482 of BNSS in his favour.
• The bail application did not mention that the applicant was abroad at the time of filing.