The High Court of Kerala has clarified that pre-arrest bail may be granted even in serious sexual offence cases when the prosecution’s narrative is undermined by contemporaneous digital evidence and the accused has no criminal history. This decision underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny at the pre-arrest stage, particularly where allegations hinge on subjective consent and conflicting narratives.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Amal K. Chandran, is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, aged 27, over multiple occasions between 2022 and May 2025. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner induced the victim into sexual relations by falsely promising marriage, later withdrawing the promise and thereby committing offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The victim filed an FIR on 22 September 2025.
Procedural History
- 2022: The petitioner and victim began a consensual romantic relationship while working at Lulu Mall, Edappally.
- May 2025: The last alleged incident of sexual intercourse occurred.
- 17 September 2025: The petitioner filed a complaint against the victim with the police, alleging harassment.
- 22 September 2025: The victim filed the FIR.
- 29 October 2025: The Sessions Court rejected the petitioner’s earlier bail application.
- 30 January 2026: The petitioner filed this bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail, arguing that the allegations are fabricated, no material evidence connects him to the crime, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary given his clean record and willingness to cooperate.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether pre-arrest bail can be granted under Section 482 BNSS when the allegations involve serious sexual offences, but the prosecution’s case is weakened by contradictory digital evidence and the absence of custodial necessity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim’s claim of a false promise of marriage is unsupported by independent evidence. They highlighted the existence of Annexure A4 WhatsApp chats showing mutual affection and no coercion, the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the victim had willingly stayed with him in hotels over multiple occasions. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest is not automatic in cases where custodial interrogation is not essential.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor contended that the gravity of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC demands strict scrutiny and that granting bail could impede the investigation. They emphasized the vulnerability of the victim and the potential for witness tampering, citing State of U.P. v. Hari Ram to argue that bail should not be granted where the accused is alleged to have exploited trust.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the First Information Statement (FIS) and the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties. It noted that the victim’s claim of a false promise of marriage was not corroborated by any third-party evidence or prior communications. The Court observed that the petitioner’s complaint filed four days before the FIR suggested a retaliatory motive.
"A reading of the FIS and the WhatsApp chats raises serious doubt about the veracity of the allegation of false promise of marriage. The relationship appears to have been consensual and intimate, with no indication of coercion or deception at the time of intercourse."
The Court further held that custodial interrogation is not mandatory in every case involving sexual offences, particularly where the accused has no prior record, is employed, and has demonstrated willingness to cooperate. The Court distinguished this case from those involving violence, threats, or exploitation of minors, noting that the victim was an adult with agency.
The Court emphasized that Section 482 BNSS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice is not delayed by unnecessary detention. It rejected the notion that gravity alone justifies pre-arrest detention without assessing the necessity of custody.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that pre-arrest bail is permissible under Section 482 BNSS where the prosecution’s case is undermined by contradictory digital evidence, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and the accused has no criminal history. The petitioner was granted bail subject to specific conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Interrogation Is Not Automatic
- Practitioners must now challenge mandatory arrest in sexual offence cases by demonstrating the absence of risk to investigation or witness tampering.
- Courts are expected to examine the nature of the relationship and digital evidence before ordering custody.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to justify why arrest is essential, not merely because the offence is serious.
Digital Evidence Can Undermine Prosecution Narratives
- WhatsApp chats, call logs, and location data must be systematically collected and presented in bail applications.
- Consensual conduct prior to dispute may negate allegations of false promise or coercion.
- Courts will weigh contemporaneous digital communication over delayed, uncorroborated testimonies.
Bail Conditions Must Be Tailored, Not Standardized
- The Court imposed targeted conditions: weekly reporting, no contact with witnesses, no travel outside Kerala.
- Practitioners should propose specific, reasonable conditions rather than generic assurances.
- Conditions must balance public interest with the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21.
