Sexual relations with women on the false pretext of marriage and subsequently reneging on the promise are emerging as a serious and alarming social trend, the Allahabad High Court has observed. Taking a stern view of such cases, the Court said they must be dealt with strictly. On this basis, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of accused Prashant Pal under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and other relevant provisions.

A single-judge bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, while hearing the matter, held that the accused had a dishonest intention from the very beginning. The Court observed that the accused never intended to marry the victim and had established physical relations with her only by luring her with a false promise of marriage.

Terming the offence a “serious crime against society,” the Court said that showing any leniency in such cases would send a wrong message. It categorically stated that exploiting a woman under the guise of marriage and later refusing to marry amounts to a social evil that must be curbed with strictness.

The defence argued that both parties were adults and that the relationship was consensual. However, the Court rejected this contention, holding that consent obtained on the basis of a false promise or deception cannot be considered valid consent.

According to the prosecution, the accused and the victim were in a relationship for nearly five years. It was alleged that Prashant Pal maintained physical relations with the victim on the false assurance of marriage and subjected her to mental and physical harassment. Later, he refused to marry her and got engaged to another woman. Following this, the victim lodged an FIR against the accused in Auraiya district.

To avoid arrest, the accused had approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

During the hearing, the government counsel strongly opposed the plea, stating that the accused had sexually exploited the victim for a long period on the false promise of marriage. The medical report also corroborated sexual exploitation. It was further alleged that the accused used obscene videos to threaten the victim.

Referring to earlier Supreme Court judgments, the High Court held that if there was no intention to fulfill the promise at the time it was made, such a promise would amount to a “false promise.” In such circumstances, the woman’s consent falls under “misconception of fact” and cannot be treated as valid consent.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Allahabad High Court, in its order dated November 4, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Prashant Pal.