Concealing an existing live-in relationship and a child born from that union while finalizing marriage negotiations with a prospective bride can carry severe legal consequences. The Kerala High Court has observed that deliberately suppressing such critical personal history to engage in physical intimacy with a prospective bride amounts, prima facie, to sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Based on this observation, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by the accused and directed him to surrender before the investigating officer.
High Court Decision and Refusal of Pre-Arrest Bail
The ruling was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen during the hearing of an appeal arising from a criminal case registered at the Feroke Police Station in Kozhikode district. The accused had approached the high court seeking protection from arrest. However, after examining the sequence of events and the nature of the allegations raised by the complainant, the bench found no ground to extend anticipatory bail. The court instructed the petitioner to surrender directly before the investigating officer to allow the statutory inquiry to proceed in accordance with law.
Engagement Ceremony and Concealment of Vital Facts
According to the official complaint, the marriage between the accused and the woman was formally settled following discussions between their families. The complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. As part of the marriage settlement, a formal ceremony was conducted between the two families, on which the woman's family incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs 10 lakh. The woman alleged that throughout this period, the man suppressed crucial information regarding his personal life. He had been cohabiting with another woman in an ongoing live-in relationship and fathered a three-year-old child from that partnership. The complainant stated that had she been aware of these circumstances earlier, she would have arrived at an entirely different conclusion regarding the relationship and the proposed marriage.
Trip to Wayanad and Intimate Relations
The complaint further states that after the wedding was settled, the woman travelled to Wayanad at the request of the accused. The two stayed together at a hotel during the visit. The woman alleged that the accused engaged in sexual relations with her during the stay, and she consented solely on the assurance and expectation of their upcoming marriage. When the true nature of his previous relationship came to light, a case was registered at Feroke Police Station under Section 318(4) and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Contentions Raised by the Accused
In his petition before the high court, counsel representing the accused contended that Section 69 of the BNS could not be invoked against him. The defence argued that the penal provision is strictly attracted only when an individual makes a promise to marry without any real intention of fulfilling it and subsequently backs out of the commitment. The accused asserted that he had always been willing to marry the complainant and had not reneged on his promise to marry, arguing that the essential ingredients of Section 69 were therefore absent.
Judicial Clarification on the Scope of Section 69 BNS
Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the defence interpretation, clarifying the broader scope of Section 69 of the BNS. The court explained that the provision contemplates two distinct legal scenarios. The first scenario involves obtaining consent for sexual intercourse through deceitful means, which includes the fraudulent suppression of facts. The second scenario pertains to making a false promise to marry without an intention to fulfill it and engaging in sexual relations on that basis.
The bench observed that the case against the petitioner falls squarely under the first category. The court held that a mere willingness to proceed with the marriage is not a valid defence on its own. If the accused deliberately concealed his ongoing cohabitation with another woman and the existence of a three-year-old child to induce consent for physical relations, the conduct prima facie constitutes deceitful means under the statute.
Premise of Consent and Marital Status
The bench observed that when the marriage was being finalized, the complainant and her family legitimately operated under the understanding that the man was unmarried and not involved in any relationship that mirrored a marriage. Acting on that explicit assumption, the engagement was solemnized and substantial financial resources amounting to Rs 10 lakh were spent. The subsequent act of establishing physical intimacy while concealing his past relationship and child meets the threshold of Section 69 of the BNS. The court made it clear that while the conduct is not categorized as rape, it falls under the ambit of sexual relations secured through deceitful means.
Invoking the SC/ST Act and Final Directive
Because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, the investigating agency also invoked Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The presence of these statutory provisions prompted the anticipatory bail application. The high court clarified that its observations are confined to the consideration of anticipatory bail based on the prima facie materials on record and must not be treated as a final determination of guilt. Concluding that the allegations disclose the commission of a prima facie cognizable offence, the court rejected the appeal and directed the accused to submit to the jurisdiction of the investigating officer.
