Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6709 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41118 of 2024 Applicant :- Sachin Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jainendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. 2-By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Sachin Sonkar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 165 of 2024, under Sections 376, 376(2)N, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Karadham, District Kaushambi seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3-As per prosecution case in brief, informant who is mother of the victim lodged a first information report 17.08.2024 with regard to an incident dated 17.12.2023 alleging inter-alia that the applicant is her distinct relative and had been living at her house for about seven years. He, after solemnizing engagement with her daughter, took her to his house on 17.12.2023 on the pretext of marriage and maintained physical relations with her for seven months and thereafter he refused to marry her. The applicant has also kept the jewellery and money, given in the engagement ceremony, with him and threatened to kill her. 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the sexual relations, between the applicant and victim, were consensual and the victim had willingly participated in the said relationship. It is further argued that now the applicant is ready to marry the victim and to take responsibility of her. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has five criminal history to his credit, which has been properly explained in paragraph no. 31 of the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2024 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. 5-Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the allegation against the applicant is serious and supported by the statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The applicant not only exploited the victim but also refused to marry her, causing severe mental trauma to the victim and her family. The applicant has criminal history of five cases including a case under The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and Arms Act, 1959. Considering the gravity of the offence and criminal history of the applicant, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find substance in the submission of learned A.G.A. that the allegation, against the applicant, is grievous in nature. The act of sexual exploitation under false promise of marriage is reprehensible offence. The applicant's actions, as alleged, not only violated the bodily integrity and dignity of the victim but also exploited her emotional vulnerabilities. The false promise of marriage is an instrument of manipulation, reducing the victim to an object for someone's personal gratification. Such conduct causes irreparable harm to victim's emotional and psychological well-being, severely impacting her trust in humanity and further perpetuating a societal culture that dehumanizes women. This Court is of the view that the applicant's act cannot be executed by a subsequent offer of marriage. The law does not allow for the acceptance of a compromise in cases where such serious offences have been committed, particularly in matters related to sexual exploitation and coercion. The applicant has a criminal history of five cases, which raises serious question about his character. 7-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8-Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad