Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93132 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12012 of 2024 Appellant :- Paramveer Chauhan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bipin Kumar,Mangal Prasad Pandey,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Paramveer Chauhan with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chandauli and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 227 of 2024 under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 89 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on the false pretext of marriage, the present appellant made and continued physical relations with the victims of this case for a period of about six years. During this period the victim got pregnancy thrice but her pregnancy was terminated by the present appellant and he avoided to marry with the victim. The prosecutrix ultimately went to the house of the appellant where his family members hurled abuses to her by caste related remarks and also threatened for dire consequences and she was thrown out of the house. However, the appellant continued to visit to her and continued physical relations and ultimately on 5.9.2024 he refused to marry with her and also hurled abuses by caste related remarks. F.I.R. was lodged on 18.9.2024 and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. The prosecution story is false and fabricated. It is further submitted that it is a case on consensual relationship. The prosecutrix is a major lady and she at her own free will made physical relations with the appellant. It is next submitted that appellant had never made any promise to marry with the prosecutrix. There are many material contradictions in the statements of the victim herself recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS from that of the contents of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the victim was never compelled to make physical relations with the appellant and even after termination of her pregnancy thrice she continued to keep physical relations with the appellant. In her statement under Section 183 of BNSS she has categorically stated that the physical relations between the two were made with her consent and will and she was adamant to marry with the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant is bachelor. It is also submitted that the accused appellant has no criminal history to his credit. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 24.9.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appellant is a cheater and since the very inception of the relation he had no intention to marry with the prosecutrix. It is a clear case of rape, as the physical relations were developed with the victim of this case by the appellant on the false pretext of marriage but after satisfying his lust, the appellant refused to marry with her. The prosecutrix has supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 CrPC. The prosecutrix had full faith and belief in the appellant that he would marry with her and that is why she made and continued the relations with the appellant. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. Admittedly, the relationship between the parties are purely consensual and that is why, prima faice, crucial ingredients of offence of rape are not founded. The appellant and the victim are major. Prior to lodging of the F.I.R. the victim did not make any complaint to anyone that she had been physically exploited by the appellant in order to fulfill his lust. Even after termination of the pregnancy thrice she developed and continued physical relations with the appellant. In Shambhu Karwar Vs. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2022 Supreme Court 3901, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2019 9 SCC 608 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 0 Supreme (SC) 182, the matter was related to consensual relationship between two major persons of opposite sex and benefit was given to the main accused. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that sexual relation has been made by the appellant with the victim on her free and sweet will, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in aforesaid Case Crime Number be released on bail on 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v). The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 29.5.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad