Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40883 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39167 of 2024 Applicant :- Waseem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava,Afzal Husain,Mohammad Asif Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Priya Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Priya Singh, learned counsel for the informant, as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2024, under Sections 351(3), 69, 352, 126(2), 74 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act and 3/5(1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station Bhitauli, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and had later on forced the victim to marry him by converting to Islam. On her refusal to do so, the applicant is stated to have threatened her to make her indecent photographs and video viral. The applicant is stated to have even threatened the victim to kill her erstwhile husband with whom her marriage was agreed to be solemnized. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The victim seems to be the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 B.N.S.S. There is no proof that the applicant had forced the victim to convert her religion into Islam. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the family members of the applicant had threatened the victim to compromise the matter and turn hostile, as such, the complaint has been lodged at the IGRS against the family members by chalan u/s 170, 126 and 135 B.N.S.S. 7. The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, has stated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape. 8. This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the age of the victim, the delay in lodging of the FIR and there being no medical corroboration of the incident, taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Waseem Ahmad, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad