1. This criminal appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in crime No.174/2026 of North Police Station, Ernakulam, challenging order dated 18.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2026, rendered by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Though notice was served upon the de facto complainant directly through the Station House Officer concerned, she did not appear.

3. The prosecution case is that, the appellant/accused, with intention to exploit the de facto complainant sexually, took her to various hotels in Ernakulam on multiple occasions starting from 06.11.2025 and had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marrying her. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended in 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015’ for short) by the appellant/accused.

4. While impeaching the veracity of the order impugned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the relationship between the appellant and the de facto complainant was purely consensual in nature and therefore, none of the offences would attract prima facie. It is submitted further that the accused was arrested on 03.04.2026 and has been continuing in judicial custody thereafter. Further it is submitted that he has no criminal antecedents and the investigation has progressed much.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the submission that the prosecution records would prima facie establish the offences alleged. Therefore, the appellant/accused, who alleged to have committed serious offences, is not entitled for regular bail at this stage.

6. On scrutiny of the prosecution records, including the statement of the de facto complainant, it could be gathered that on the promise of marriage, the de facto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse on 25.02.2026, 06.11.2025 and on different dates during December 2025 is the crux of the allegation. It could be noticed from the records that the de facto complainant had reached the place of occurrences voluntarily. However, the prosecution case is that she was subjected to sexual molestation on the promise of marriage. But the appellant/accused would contend that the sexual intercourse is purely consensual in nature. In fact, the same is a matter of evidence and therefore, this aspect need not be considered by this Court at this stage.

6. On perusal of the case diary, it is discernible that the investigation has progressed much and further custody of the appellant/accused is not required for the purpose of effective investigation. In view of the factual aspects, I am of the view that, the appellant/accused is liable to be released on bail, subject to conditions, after setting aside the order impugned.

7. In the result, this appeal stands allowed.

The verdict impugned dated 18.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1/2026 stands set aside and the appellant/accused is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

                  i. The appellant shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.

                  ii. The appellant/accused shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall cooperate with the investigation and shall be available for interrogation.

                  iii. The appellant/accused also shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

                  iv. The appellant/accused shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, including the de facto complainant, acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to any police officer.

                  v. The appellant/accused shall not disturb the de facto complainant, in any manner, during the currency of bail hereby granted, if any such event reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same alone is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted at the instance of the Special Court or by this Court.

                  vi. The appellant/accused shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted at the instance of the Special Court or by this Court.