Protects Man from Misuse of “False Promise of Marriage” Allegation

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to a police officer accused of sexual assault under the claim of “false promise of marriage.” The Court held that when the woman was already in a subsisting marriage, such an allegation cannot be sustained in law.

Brief Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, Mahesh V.M., a Sub-Inspector of Police, was accused under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• The complainant alleged that the petitioner had been in a relationship with her from 2016 till July 2025, promising marriage.
• During this period, she lived with the petitioner, though her first marriage had not been legally dissolved.
• The petitioner later married another woman in January 2025, after which the complaint was filed.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 64(2)(m), BNS 2023 – sexual assault based on deceitful promise of marriage.
• Section 69, BNS 2023 – sexual exploitation.
• Section 482, BNSS 2023 – inherent powers of the High Court to grant anticipatory bail.

Arguments of the Parties

• Petitioner’s Argument:
  • He was falsely implicated.
  • Produced complaints and evidence showing extortion attempts by the complainant.
  • Pointed out that the complainant was still legally married, making allegations of “false promise of marriage” untenable.
• Respondent (State):
  • Opposed bail, arguing custodial interrogation was necessary.
  • Asserted seriousness of allegations.

Court’s Observation

• The complainant was already in a subsisting marriage, legally negating the allegation of sexual intercourse based on a promise of marriage.
• Custodial interrogation was not required, as no convincing reasons were presented by the prosecution.
• Relied on precedents:
  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) – anticipatory bail principles.
  • Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2024) – mere assertion of need for custody is insufficient.

Conclusion of the Judgment

The Court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions, including:

• Limited custody for interrogation.
• Bail bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties.
• No tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant.
• Travel restrictions without court permission.

Comments from the author of this website

I have to say this bluntly—cases like these are not about one individual, they are about the systemic abuse of law against men. A woman, already married, chooses to live with another man for nearly a decade, enjoys companionship, exchanges money, chats, intimacy, and then suddenly turns around to call it “rape on false promise of marriage.” How absurd is this?

What shocks me is the ease with which such cases are filed. One complaint, and a man’s life is turned upside down. His career is at stake, his dignity questioned, and his family dragged through humiliation. Even before trial, society labels him a criminal. And when the case collapses later? Nothing happens to the complainant. No penalty. No accountability. The man simply has to rebuild his life from scratch.

This is legal terrorism. It is the weaponization of a law meant to protect genuine victims, being misused to settle scores, extort money, or punish men for walking away from relationships. If a man had done this to a woman, society would be outraged. But when it’s a woman misusing the law, it gets brushed aside as “her right to complain.”

What troubles me most is that men are constantly told to “prove their innocence” while women are never asked to prove the truthfulness of their accusations. This imbalance is tearing down men’s faith in justice. A relationship gone wrong cannot and should not be criminalized. Adults making choices must take responsibility for those choices, instead of running to the police station to rewrite the past as a crime.

The Kerala High Court has rightfully recognized that such allegations cannot stand in law, but let’s not forget—many men don’t get this relief. They spend months in custody, lose their jobs, lose their families, while the complainant moves on without consequence. This imbalance must end. False cases are not harmless—they destroy lives. It is time for the law to hold complainants accountable when they misuse these provisions.

Final Thoughts

This judgment is more than a relief for one man—it is a signal that misuse of “false promise of marriage” allegations cannot continue unchecked. Courts must draw a clear boundary between genuine exploitation and consensual relationships that later fall apart.

For men, the message is loud and clear: in today’s legal environment, trust without proof is dangerous. Always keep records, protect yourself, and never underestimate how quickly affection can turn into accusation.

Justice cannot be one-sided. It must protect men and women equally. As long as laws continue to be twisted into weapons of harassment, we must keep demanding accountability, fairness, and reform.

 Practical Advice for Men

• Always save evidence: Keep WhatsApp chats, emails, call logs, financial transactions. They can protect you later.
• Be cautious in relationships: Especially if the other person is already married or in a complicated personal situation.
• File complaints if harassed: Don’t wait—document extortion, threats, or honey-trap attempts with police.
• Avoid casual promises: Don’t casually discuss marriage or commitment in writing or messages if you’re unsure.
• Seek legal help early: If you sense trouble, consult a lawyer immediately instead of waiting for an FIR to hit you.

Read Complete Judgement Here