Ernakulam, Sept. 17 In a detailed ruling on Wednesday, the Kerala High Court allowed anticipatory bail to two brothers facing serious allegations of rape, criminal intimidation, and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Gopinath P. concluded that the facts presented did not support charges of rape or the SC/ST Act’s stringent provisions.
Background
The case arose from a complaint filed at Maradu Police Station. The woman alleged that the first accused, Rahul M R, 29, had forced her into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage, which later broke down. His elder brother Renjith M R, 37, was accused of threatening her to stay away from Rahul.
Read also: Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC Ruling: Cheque Bounce Notice Invalid If Amount Differs from Cheque
The prosecution invoked Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (repeated rape) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which bars anticipatory bail unless the court finds no prima facie case.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, defence lawyers highlighted that the complainant was already married and living separately from her husband when she chose to live with Rahul. They argued that a long consensual relationship cannot later be reframed as rape merely because marriage did not follow.
Justice Gopinath agreed, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings. “Where a relationship between two adults lasts for years and breaks down later, it cannot automatically be called rape on a false promise of marriage,” the bench observed.
On the charge against the elder brother, the court found the evidence thin. Phone records showed two long calls, but the judge noted that these coincided with a period when the complainant and Rahul were still on good terms. “It is quite possible that the first accused was using the second accused’s phone,” the order said.
The judge further explained that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act applies only when an offence carrying at least ten years’ imprisonment is proven. With no solid case for rape or criminal intimidation, that clause could not stand.
Read also: Supreme Court Judge Steps Aside From Vedanta PIL Citing Conflict, Case To Be Reassigned Soon
Decision
Setting aside the lower court’s rejection of bail, Justice Gopinath directed that both brothers be released on anticipatory bail if arrested. Each must furnish a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, appear before investigators on specified dates, and avoid any contact or influence over the complainant. The order warns that any breach will invite cancellation of bail.
The judge clarified that these findings are preliminary, meant only to decide bail, and not a final verdict on guilt.
Case Title: Rahul M.R. & Renjith M.R. vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1685 & 1690 of 2025
Judgments Date: 17 September 2025
