In Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala and Ors., Kerala HC granted anticipatory bail to rapper “Vedan”(real name Hiran Das Murali) charged u/s 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC for allegedly committing rape on the false promise of marriage from 01.08.2021 to 31.03.2023

Court observed, “Labelling a physical intimacy as rape after a relationship ceases to exist is illogical and harsh.”

According to the FIR lodged on 31.07.2025, the complainant, a doctor, first contacted Vedan on Instagram, as she was impressed by his songs and interviews. Their online conversations developed into friendship and later into a closer personal bond. In August 2021, when the petitioner visited Kozhikode, she invited him to stay at her apartment.

Complainant alleged that during this first visit, petitioner requested her permission for a kiss, and she permitted him to kiss her. However, she claimed that beyond this, she did not consent to further physical intimacy.

According to her, petitioner forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and stayed in her flat for the next 3 days. She further alleged that thereafter they regularly engaged in intimacy on his assurance of marriage. She stated that her consent to sexual relations was vitiated as it was induced on the false promise of marriage.

She further claimed that the betrayal caused her severe emotional distress, for which she has been undergoing psychiatric treatment for depression since 2023. She also pointed to his earlier public apology during the #MeToo movement, alleging that petitioner had a history of exploiting women. She argued that granting him bail would cause her further trauma.

The petitioner’s counsel, however, submitted that the allegations, even if taken prima facie, revealed nothing more than a consensual romantic relationship which later failed due to incompatibility. The defense emphasised that the complainant herself admitted to permitting him to kiss her, and thereafter continued to allow his stay at her apartment and their intimate relationship for over two years.

It was also pointed out that the FIR was filed in July 2025 after a delay of more than 2 years which cast serious doubt on the credibility of the allegations. The defense further argued that the complaint was lodged with mala fide intent to tarnish the petitioner’s public image as a musician and social figure.

After analysing the facts, Court found that the allegations pointed towards consensual intimacy rather than forcible sexual assault and observed,
“It is baffling and difficult to comprehend, at this juncture at least, how, if the petitioner had raped her on the first day, she would still have allowed him to remain in her apartment for the following three days or even on later and regularly engage in a physical relationship with him.”

Court stressed the fine line between consent obtained on a false promise of marriage and consensual intimacy in anticipation of marriage, holding that each case must be assessed on its facts. Referring to precedents, Court reiterated,“Merely because a promise to marry did not result in marriage, that by itself need not necessarily mean that the sexual relationship was based on a false promise of marriage.”

It also noted that both the petitioner and complainant were educated adults in their 30s, fully capable of understanding the consequences of their relationship. It warned against misuse of criminal law in matters arising out of failed romantic relationships.

Concluding that custodial interrogation was not warranted, Court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting that while the allegations were serious, the facts revealed a consensual relationship