The Kerala High Court has held that, prima facie, concealing an existing live-in relationship and a child born from that relationship from a prospective bride can fall within the scope of “deceitful means” under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), where sexual intercourse is subsequently alleged to have taken place on the basis of the proposed marriage.
Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail in a case registered at Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode.
Background
According to the prosecution case, the marriage of the appellant, Udayan, with the de facto complainant had been fixed through a marriage-fixation ceremony. The complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, while the appellant did not belong to either the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant had suppressed the fact that he was already in a relationship in the nature of marriage with another woman and that they had a three-year-old child. The complainant’s family had allegedly spent ₹10 lakh for the marriage-fixation ceremony.
The complainant later went to Wayanad after the marriage was fixed. The prosecution alleged that the appellant compelled her to have sexual intercourse on the premise that they had already decided to marry.
The appellant argued that Section 69 BNS was not attracted because he had not withdrawn from the promise to marry and remained willing to marry the complainant. The Court, however, explained that Section 69 covers two separate situations: sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, and sexual intercourse following a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it.
The Court found that the allegations, at the prima facie stage, fell within the first category. It noted that the marriage had been fixed on the understanding that the appellant was unmarried and had no other relationship in the nature of marriage, while the earlier relationship and child had allegedly been kept from the complainant and her family.
The Court observed:
“Subsequently, on the said premise of marriage, after suppressing the earlier relationship, the defacto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse by deceitful means. Though the said overt act may not be treated as rape, the same would fall under the first situation dealt with in Section 69 of the BNS, as already pointed out.”
The High Court held that the alleged offences were prima facie made out and that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applied. Consequently, anticipatory bail could not be granted.
The Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the Special Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail, and directed the appellant to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith.
It further permitted the Investigating Officer to arrest him if he failed to surrender and proceed with the investigation.
Case Details
Case Title: Udayan v. XXX & Ors.
Case Number: Crl.A. No. 1231 of 2026
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
Decision Date: 29 September 2026
