The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by a woman advocate who sought to cancel the pre-arrest bail granted to her former partner, also a practicing lawyer. The woman had accused him of rape under the false promise of marriage, coercing her into an abortion, and stealing her personal belongings.
Background
The case stems from an FIR registered at Ernakulam Central Police Station in 2025. According to the complainant, her relationship with the accused, an old acquaintance from law college, turned abusive. She alleged that he persuaded her into sexual relations in July 2023, promising marriage. Later, when she became pregnant in January 2024, both initiated online procedures under the Special Marriage Act but, under pressure from his family, she underwent an abortion at a hospital in Muvattupuzha.
The woman further claimed that they lived together in a rented house in Ernakulam from November 2024 until their separation. After the split, she accused him of stealing valuables, including title deeds, cheque books, ornaments, and other items.
In May 2025, the Additional Sessions Court in Ernakulam granted the accused anticipatory bail with conditions. Challenging this, the complainant approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Court's Observations
Justice G. Girish, hearing the matter, observed that the relationship between the two advocates had unique circumstances. The judge referred to the Sessions Court's finding that their intimacy was consensual from the very beginning.
He stressed, however, that such findings were only for the purpose of deciding bail and should not prejudice the future trial.
"The observations in the impugned order are confined to the pre-arrest bail application," the bench clarified, "and shall not affect the course of enquiry and trial."
The prosecution argued that the accused had not fully cooperated with the investigation. But the court noted that the prosecution had not yet sought bail cancellation before the trial court, despite alleging non-cooperation.
Justice Girish pointed out that the bail order already contained safeguards, including conditions ensuring cooperation with investigators and prohibiting intimidation of witnesses.
"If any condition is violated," the judge said, "the investigating agency is free to approach the court below for cancellation of bail."
Decision
Concluding that the order of the Sessions Court was not legally flawed, the High Court refused to interfere.
"The reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for granting pre-arrest bail cannot be said to be erroneous," the court remarked.
The petition, therefore, was dismissed, leaving the anticipatory bail granted to the accused intact.
Case Title:- XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No.:- Crl.M.C No. 5551 of 2025