Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4219 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45606 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Amit Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 151 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376C IPC, police station Kareli, district Prayagraj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. The Facts which formed the bedrock of the prosecution case are that the victim has lodged a first information report on 24.08.2024 against the applicant that on 12.04.2021 she met the applicant at Prayagraj Railway Station. Thereafter the applicant on the assurance of marriage, kept on making sexual relation with her against her wishes. As a result of sexual relationship with the applicant, she became pregnant and when the victim asked the applicant for solemnizing marriage, she was beaten up and was threatened of dire consequences. On 08.2.2022, she gave birth to the child. Thereafter, the applicant made allegations against the victim of bad character and asked her to keep the mouth shut otherwise he will defame her. The FIR further alleges that after sometimes, the applicant by giving assurance to the victim that he will solemnize the marriage with her very soon and not ruin the future of the victim and her son, again made physical relation with her against her wishes resultantly the victim became pregnant and gave birth to another child. After the birth of second child, the applicant refused to marry the victim and on 27.06.2024, the applicant kicked her out. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of live-in-relationship between the applicant and the victim. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim is major and consenting with the applicant. It is also contended that the victim was a lady of bad character and when the applicant objected to her free movement, she became annoyed and lodged the instant first information report with false and concocted allegations. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2024 having no criminal history to his credit 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 Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant has repeatedly made sexual relations with the victim against her wishes and with the relationship of the applicant, the victim twice became pregnant and gave birth to two children. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant. I also find that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by giving false assurance that he would marry her. After she got pregnant and gave birth to a child, he refused to do so and after sometime, he again lured the victim and made false promise to marry and again made physical relation with her, as a result whereof the victim again became pregnant and gave birth to second child. Thereafter the applicant again refused to marry the victim and kicked her out of his house. From this, it is evident that he never intended to marry her and procured her consent only for the reason of making sexual relations with her, which act of the accused falls squarely under the definition of rape as he had sexual intercourse with her consent which was obtained under a misconception of fact. I also find that the intention of the applicant from the beginning was not honest and he kept on promising that he will marry her, till she became pregnant twice. This kind of consent obtained by the accused cannot be said to be any consent because she was under a misconception of fact that the accused intends to marry her, therefore, she had submitted to sexual intercourse with him. 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 the offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. 9. It is clarified that the observations, contained in this order is limited for the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be led before it. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Ishrat Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad