The above case is about a Bail application filed before the Orissa High Court. The accused was granted bail based on the grounds available under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But, under these 7 grounds, nowhere has it been mentioned that "Sex on false promise of marriage is a ground for rape". The High Court of Orissa clearly placed evidence from the Law and granted bail to the accused.

Here, the High Court has taken a reference from an English case "Queen v. Clarence, WH (1888) 22 QBD 23".

In this case it was held that, where a man on the road meets and gives duplicate coins/notes to a stranger woman and in return has sexual intercourse with her, it will be definitely held that there was fraud but it can't be said that, there was no consent from the woman's side.

The High Court also made a reference to the above English case.

After passing of the decision, several newspapers and media outlets passed on the information to the public. This created a huge impact amongst the public especially, amongst the youth fraternity.

From this decision it is very clear that, since the IPC does not mention any ground where it has been told, sex on false promise of marriage is an offence of rape, there is no offence of rape and the accused had to be granted bail.

Let us analyse certain legal tenets to find out few hidden legal principles of technicality lying under this topic.

What the Law says?In accordance with this section, if a consent is given by a person under fear of injury or under misconception of fact, then it would not amount to a valid consent.

What the Law says? Section 7 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that every expression explained under the code, is used in every part, will be covered in conformity with the explanation. Section 90 defines the term "Consent". In accordance with this section, if a consent is given by a person under fear of injury or under misconception of fact, then it would not amount to a valid consent. In accordance with this section, if a consent is given by a person under fear of injury or under misconception of fact, then it would not amount to a valid consent.

In accordance with this section, if a consent is given by a person under fear of injury or under misconception of fact, then it would not amount to a valid consent.

Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No 629/2019

The Sessions Court sentenced the accused to 10 years of imprisonment and High Court confirmed it, but the Supreme Court reduced it from 10 years to 7 years.

Misconception of fact was proved and it amounted to rape.

In another case before the Madras High Court, it was observed that the complainant was conscious of the fact that the marriage may not take place and willingly engaged in sexual act.

The High Court dismissed the rape charges on false promise to marry.