West Bengal cricketer and Delhi Capitals wicketkeeper-batter Abhishek Porel has been arrested following allegations that he had a sexual relationship with a woman after allegedly promising to marry her. The case has attracted considerable attention because of Porel’s profile as an IPL player and because it raises an important question under India’s new criminal law: when can a promise of marriage followed by sexual intercourse become a criminal offense?
According to reports, a woman who is studying medicine filed a complaint against the 23-year-old cricketer. She allegedly claimed that she and Porel had been in a relationship for around three years and that he had promised to marry her. The relationship later deteriorated, after which she approached the police.
Porel was arrested by the Hooghly district police and produced before a court in Chinsurah. The court reportedly ordered three days of police custody. Recent reports also say that the case involves allegations beyond the disputed relationship, including criminal intimidation and issues concerning electronic material.
It is important to stress that these are allegations. Porel’s arrest does not mean that he has been found guilty. The allegations will have to be investigated and tested through the judicial process.
What Is the Allegation Against Abhishek Porel?
According to reports, the complainant approached Magra police in Hooghly on June 23, alleging that she had been in a relationship with Porel for several years.
She reportedly claimed that Porel had assured her they would marry. According to the complaint, the relationship later broke down, and the alleged promise of marriage was not fulfilled.
Reports further indicate that the woman approached the Calcutta High Court, claiming that the police had initially failed to take effective action. Following court intervention, police moved to arrest Porel. He was subsequently produced before the Chinsurah court, which ordered three days of police custody.
The investigation is expected to examine the history of the relationship, communications between the two individuals, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged promise of marriage.
What Does BNS Section 69 Actually Say?
India introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, or BNS, on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code as the country’s principal criminal law. Section 69 specifically deals with sexual intercourse obtained through “deceitful means” or through a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfill that promise.
The provision applies where the sexual intercourse does not amount to rape, but where a person allegedly used deceit or made a marriage promise without intending to honor it.
The punishment can extend to 10 years in prison, along with a fine. The law also explains that “deceitful means” can include false promises of employment or promotion and marriage by suppressing identity.
This makes Section 69 an important new provision in cases involving allegations of sexual relationships obtained through a fraudulent promise of marriage.
Does Breaking Up Automatically Mean Section 69 Applies?
No.
This is perhaps the most important point when discussing the law.
The end of a relationship does not automatically establish that a criminal offense took place. The central question under Section 69 is whether the promise to marry was false from the beginning and was made without an intention to fulfill it.
For example, suppose two adults enter a relationship and genuinely intend to marry. Later, circumstances change. They may have family disagreements, personal differences, or other reasons for ending the relationship.
That situation is not automatically the same as someone allegedly making a marriage promise while having no intention of marrying from the outset.
The distinction between a genuine promise that later could not be fulfilled and a deliberately false promise is therefore extremely important.
Recent Indian court decisions considering Section 69 have also highlighted the difference between a consensual relationship that later turns sour and a relationship allegedly based on a fraudulent promise from the beginning.
Why Intention at the Beginning Matters
The wording of Section 69 focuses on a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it. That means the question of intention can become central to the investigation and trial.
If investigators or a court find evidence suggesting that a person never intended to marry but allegedly used the promise to obtain sexual relations, Section 69 may become relevant.
But if evidence indicates that the person initially genuinely intended to marry and only later changed their mind because the relationship broke down, the legal position can be different.
That does not mean every case can be decided simply by looking at the length of the relationship. A long relationship does not automatically disprove an allegation, just as a short relationship does not automatically prove one.
Courts have to examine the individual facts.
How Is Section 69 Different From Rape?
Section 69 itself makes an important distinction: it applies where the sexual intercourse does not amount to rape.
That means allegations under Section 69 and allegations of rape should not be treated as legally identical.
Under the BNS, rape is addressed separately, beginning with Section 63, while Section 69 deals specifically with sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a marriage promise allegedly made without the intention of fulfilling it.
The precise charges in a particular case depend on the facts alleged and the evidence collected during the investigation.
Therefore, simply describing every dispute involving a broken marriage promise as “rape” can create an inaccurate picture of what Section 69 actually says.
What Happened Under the Old IPC?
Before the BNS came into force, India operated under the Indian Penal Code, or IPC.
The IPC did not contain a provision identical to the current Section 69, specifically criminalizing sexual intercourse obtained through a false promise of marriage as a separate offense.
Depending on the facts, investigators and courts dealt with such allegations using other provisions, including rape and cheating-related sections, where their legal requirements were satisfied.
The BNS has now created a more specific statutory framework for sexual intercourse allegedly obtained through deceitful means, including a false promise to marry.
What Evidence Could Matter in a Case Like This?
Cases involving alleged false promises of marriage are often highly dependent on evidence.
Investigators may examine messages between the individuals, call records, photographs, videos, financial transactions, and other digital communications where relevant and lawfully obtained.
They may also look at what was said about marriage, when those promises were made, and how the relationship developed over time.
The alleged conduct of both parties before and after the relationship deteriorated can also become relevant to understanding the circumstances.
Reports in the Porel case have mentioned allegations involving intimate photographs and electronic devices. Any such material would need to be examined as part of the investigation, while privacy and legal protections must also be respected.
Importantly, the existence of a photograph, message, or other digital record does not by itself establish criminal liability. Its meaning depends on the surrounding facts and the way it is presented and assessed during legal proceedings.
Why the Three-Day Police Custody Matters
Porel’s three-day police custody gives investigators time to question him and pursue different aspects of the complaint.
During the investigation, police may seek to establish the chronology of the relationship, examine communications, and collect relevant evidence.
The custody order itself, however, should not be interpreted as a finding of guilt. Arrest and police custody are stages in the criminal investigation, not a final judicial determination.
The court will ultimately consider the evidence and legal arguments before deciding whether the allegations have been established.
The Difference Between a False Promise and a Failed Relationship
The broader legal debate surrounding Section 69 comes down to one difficult question: when does a broken promise become criminal deception?
Imagine two people enter a relationship. One genuinely believes they will eventually marry. Years later, their relationship collapses, and the marriage ends.
That is very different from an allegation that one person never intended to marry and allegedly used a deliberately false promise to obtain sexual relations.
The law is therefore not simply saying that every person who refuses to marry after a relationship can be prosecuted.
Instead, Section 69 specifically addresses cases where the promise was allegedly made without the intention of fulfilling it.
What Happens Next in the Abhishek Porel Case?
The investigation will now be crucial.
Police will have to examine the complainant’s allegations, Porel’s response, communications between the parties, and other available evidence. The allegations concerning electronic material may also form part of the investigation.
The court will then determine the legal course of the case based on the evidence and applicable provisions.
At this stage, it is essential to avoid treating allegations as established facts. Reports confirm that Porel has been arrested in connection with the case, but the allegations against him have not been finally proved in court.
What Section 69 Means in Simple Terms
In simple language, Section 69 does not mean that failing to marry someone automatically becomes a crime.
The key issue is whether a person allegedly used a marriage promise as a deceptive means to obtain sexual intercourse while having no intention of marrying the woman.
If the promise was allegedly false from the beginning, Section 69 may apply. If the relationship was genuine and the intention to marry later changed, the legal position may be different.
That distinction will ultimately depend on the facts and evidence of each case.
For Abhishek Porel, the investigation and subsequent court proceedings will determine how the allegations are assessed under the law. Until a court reaches a final conclusion, he remains an accused person and not a convicted offender.
The case, therefore, serves as another reminder of why the wording of BNS Section 69 matters. A broken relationship, a failed marriage plan, and an allegedly deliberate false promise are not necessarily the same thing under Indian law. The evidence surrounding the intention behind the promise is likely to be central to determining what happened in this case.
