No relief for Abishek Porel, court denies bail; remanded to 14 days judicial custody in rape case

In a major setback for Bengal and Delhi Capitals wicketkeeper-batter Abishek Porel, the Chinsurah Court on Friday, August 14, rejected his bail application and remanded him to 14 days of judicial custody.

Legal trouble mounts on Abishek Porel

The 23-year-old was initially taken into custody by Mogra Police after a medical student studying in Karnataka filed a complaint against him on June 23, accusing him of misconduct and establishing sexual relations on the false promise of marriage. Porel was first presented in court on August 11, where he was placed in a three-day police remand before being produced again.

ALSO READ: Will Jasprit Bumrah's absence hurt India in Sri Lanka? Here's what captain Shubman Gill said

Court rejects bail plea of Porel in rape case

Though Abishek Porel categorically denied the accusations leveled against him, law enforcement faced significant difficulty locating the cricketer. Authorities made several trips to his residence in Chandannagar without success before finally tracking him down and making the arrest in Kolkata. His formal detention took place on August 11 in Hooghly following police interrogation, triggered by serious complaints from a young woman alleging rape, blackmail, and various other criminal acts. The formal charges filed against him span numerous provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including those related to sexual assault, extortion, criminal intimidation, and breach of trust, along with sections 66E and 72 of the Information Technology Act.

ALSO READ: Not the next head coach, VVS Laxman set to be BCCI's Director of Cricket

Following his late-night arrest on Wednesday and a mandatory medical checkup, Porel was presented before the Chinsurah court. His legal team immediately petitioned for bail, but the court rejected the plea, ordering a 14-day period of judicial custody while investigators continue to gather evidence. A conclusive legal ruling remains pending as the inquiry proceeds.

According to the complainant's statement, the dispute stems from a broken promise of engagement. She stated that after being in a relationship with Porel where marriage was explicitly committed, and even discussed between their respective families—the alliance fell apart. The woman alleged that the relationship broke down after she discovered Porel was romantically involved with other women, ultimately leading to the current legal proceedings.