Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42710 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6605 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Ameer Alias Mohd. Amir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rishad Murtaza,Aishwarya Mishra,Arnnav Prakash Tikku,Dildar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nikhil Rai, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present applicant is in jail since 20.05.2025, in case crime no. 104 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(2) and 115(2) of BNS at Police Station Madiyaon District Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged. 4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report which has been lodged on 09.02.2025 without indicating the exact date of incident though while narrating the prosecution story in the First Information Report, one date of meeting of the applicant with the prosecutrix has been indicated as 12th October 2024, another date has been indicated as 15th October 2024, and last date has been indicated as 9th January 2025, but no reason has been indicated as to why, since October 2024, till date the prosecutrix has not lodged the first information report. 5. Sri Murtaza has stated that the present applicant is himself of victim inasmuch as he met with the prosecutrix on Shaadi.com, where she has not disclosed herself as a married lady. His relation with the prosecutrix were normal and cordial. The applicant came to know through reliable sources that the prosecutrix is a married lady. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. 8, which is a nikahnama of the prosecutrix with one Mohammad Waseem Akram and the date of marriage is 30.11.2015. Her husband Mohammed Waseem Akram is a resident of Jharkhand whereas, the prosecutrix is resident of Amethi, UP. As per her family register (Annexure No. 9), her year of birth is 1990. Therefore, at the time of alleged incident, she was about 34 years. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. 10, which is the Aadhaar card of the prosecutrix, showing the name of her husband as Mohammed Waseem Akram. 6. Sri Murtaza has stated that the present applicant came to know through reliable sources that the prosecutrix is not only a married lady, but is having one child aged about four years. 7. Sri Murtuza has placed reliance of dictum of Apex Court in re:- Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517 and one recent judgement of Amol Bhagwan Nehul Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1230, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the facts and circumstances under which any offence relating to establishing physical relation may be treated as false promise of marriage. In nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the physical relations are consensual in nature, on account of that relation, a person may not be prosecuted for the offence of rape or the offence of establishing physical relation on the pretext of false promise of marriage. 8. Paragraph 9 and 10 in re:- Amol Bhagwan Nehul (Supra) reads as under :- "9. In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly3 to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC. 10. As demonstrated hereinabove, the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) or 506 IPC are not established. The present case squarely falls under categories enumerated in Para 102(5) & 102(7) as identified by this Court in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (supra) for the exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC by the High Court so as to prevent the abuse of process of law. Para 102 reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” " 9. Sri Murtaza has further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case are so peculiar where a married lady having one child concealing such fact try to establish relation with the applicant and later on levelling allegation of establishing physical relation on the pretext of false promise of marriage. Therefore, Sri Murtaza has reiterated that in the present case, it is not prosecutrix who is the victim, but the present applicant is the victim. He has further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 10. Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. 11. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 20.05.2025; there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in the near future; and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Mohd. Ameer Alias Mohd. Amir, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench