1. This application for regular bail has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 440/2026 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(l), 506 of IPC and Section 92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act.

2. The prosecution's allegation can be epitomised as follows;

The de facto complainant is a lady aged 48 years having locomotor disability. The accused, with an intention to satisfy his lust, promised to marry the de facto complainant and, on 01.05.2023, took her to a lodge at Kanyakumari and had sex with her after offering to marry her. Subsequently, on 29.11.2023, the accused threatened the de facto complainant that he had the obscene photographs of the de facto complainant and, under the said threat, took her to a hotel at Palayam and again had sex with her. Moreover, the petitioner sent the photographs of the de facto complainant to her family members and posted comments in the Facebook post that he could not live without the de facto complainant, which made the relationship public. Further, the petitioner sent a notice to the de facto complainant demanding payment of Rs.3,60,000/- allegedly borrowed by the de facto complainant and took signed papers from the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a married man aged 58 years, and to the knowledge of the petitioner, the de facto complainant is a married lady aged 48 years. The learned counsel further submitted that the relationship of the de facto complainant and the petitioner was a voluntary and consensual one, and the petitioner had never promised to marry the de facto complainant. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant had borrowed some money from the petitioner and for the recovery of the said amount, he filed a suit has OS.No.2191/2025 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram and it was on receipt of the notice of the suit from the court, that the de facto complainant foisted the present case to evade the repayment of the amount borrowed by her.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, emphasizing the grave nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner.

6. The allegation that the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage is undoubtedly serious in nature. As per the prosecution, on 01.05.2023, the petitioner allegedly took the de facto complainant to a lodge at Kanyakumari and had sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that, on 29.11.2023, he again took her to a hotel at Palayam and engaged in sexual intercourse.

7. From the nature of the allegations, it can be inferred that the de facto complainant accompanied the petitioner and engaged in the sexual relationship on the belief that he would marry her. However, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner is a married man aged 58 years. The initial sexual relationship at Kanyakumari is, on the face of the record, stated to have been consensual. Whether such consent was vitiated by a misrepresentation, namely a promise of marriage, is a matter to be established on evidence and can be appropriately considered during trial. Similarly, the allegation that the subsequent act was committed under threat is also an issue that requires detailed consideration at at the time of trial.

8. Moreover, the petitioner has produced a copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 2191/2025, which prima facie indicates that, prior to the registration of the present case, he had instituted a civil suit against the de facto complainant for recovery of money allegedly borrowed by her. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out abruptly. An in-depth investigation is, therefore, necessary in this case to discern the truth and to separate the grain from the chaff.

9. Notably, the incidents leading to the registration of the case is alleged to have occurred on 01.05.2023 and 29.11.2023 respectively. However, the FIR was lodged only in the year 2026. It is well settled that delay in lodging an FIR in cases involving sexual offences is not necessarily fatal, as various factors such as social stigma, family considerations, and the impact on the victim’s marital life may deter immediate reporting. However, in cases where there is a possibility of false implication, such delay assumes significance and must be carefully considered.

10. In the present case, the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be determined only after a full-fledged trial, and it would be inappropriate to delve into the merits of the prosecution's case at this stage. Anyhow, the petitioner was arrested on 24.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody since 25.03.2026. The investigation in this case appears to have substantially progressed and is on the verge of completion. Notably, no criminal antecedents have been attributed to the petitioner. The presence and cooperation of the petitioner during the ongoing investigation can be ensured by imposing stringent conditions.

Hence, having regard to the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner and the current stage of the investigation, I am inclined to allow this bail application, subject to the following conditions:

                   (i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

                   (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. for a period of three months or until the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

                   (iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

                   (iv) The petitioner shall not contact the victim, either directly or indirectly, including through electronic means, and shall not enter the premises of the residence of the victim.

                   (v) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.

                   (vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

If the petitioner violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. Upon such application being filed, the jurisdictional court shall be competent to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the fact that the bail was granted by this Court.