Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21101 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42092 of 2024 Applicant :- Amjad Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0480 of 2024, under Sections 69, 351(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station South, District Firozabad, 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 subsequently refused to comply with the said promise. 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. It is next contended that there is no medical corroboration of the said incident. The victim had three children out of her earlier marriage. The matter of consensual relationship which went sore, has been converted into criminal case by the victim, as such the allegations are per se false. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2019 (9)SC 608 and Ansar Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 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. 10. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and 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. 12. Let the applicant- Amjad Ali, 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. 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. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 :- 13.2.2025/Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad