Prayagraj: Observing that the trend of sexually exploiting women by making false promises of marriage and later refusing to marry them is increasing in society and must be curbed at the outset, the Allahabad high court rejected the anticipatory bail petition of a man accused under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceit, etc).Rejecting the anticipatory bail application of one Prashant Pal, Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava observed that the accused applicant had a fraudulent intention towards the woman from the very beginning. He had no intention of marrying the woman from the outset and was merely gratifying his lust, Justice Srivastava added.The court expressed grave concern over the nature of the crime, terming it “serious against society”. Rejecting the defence of a consensual relationship, the court observed that the accused had physical relations with the woman on the false promise of marriage. Exploiting the woman under the pretext of marriage and ultimately refusing to marry her are tendencies that are increasing in society and must be curbed at the outset. “This is a serious offence against society, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any leniency,” the court ruled.The court further noted that although the woman was an adult and aware of the consequences of her actions with the accused, she placed complete trust and faith in him.However, the court also observed that, on the other hand, the accused applicant had no intention of marrying her from the very beginning of the relationship.As per facts of the case, the accused applicant was alleged to have had physical relations with the woman on the false promise of marriage and subjected her to physical and mental torture.It is alleged that despite a five-year relationship, the accused later refused to marry her and got engaged to another woman. Following this, the woman lodged an FIR in Auraiya.Subsequently, the applicant filed a petition in the HC seeking protection from arrest.During the court proceedings, the applicant’s counsel argued that the allegations were vague and false. It was further argued that both were adults and had been in a consensual relationship since 2020 but he had never made any promise of marriage to her.It was also argued that merely refusing to marry after a long relationship does not constitute a crime.On the other hand, the state counsel opposed the petition, arguing that the accused applicant had maintained sexual relations with the woman for five years under the false pretext of marriage.It was also submitted that the medical examination corroborated the woman’s statement of sexual assault and that the accused was also threatening her with obscene videos.In this backdrop, the HC, while citing several apex court judgments, held that for a promise to be considered false, the promisor must have had no intention of fulfilling it at the time of making the promise.The court also noted from Supreme Court orders that if the intention was to induce the woman to have sexual intercourse by deceiving her, it amounts to a misconception of fact, which vitiates the woman’s consent.While considering the facts of the present case, the HC found that the conduct of the accused falls within the ambit of a false promise.Consequently, the court in its decision dated Nov 4 rejected the anticipatory bail application of the accused applicant.