Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56670 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10613 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 2.4.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yadvesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 635 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(3) of BNS and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Tronica City, District - Ghaziabad, 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 had later on 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. There is no clinching evidence to suggest that the applicant misled the victim from the beginning. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. The victim is major although she is stated to be 16 years old. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. The Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 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. 8. This Court has avoided expressing its opinion as the case hinges on whether the applicant's promise of marriage was genuine or false and whether the physical relationship was consensual or not. It is for the Trial Court to draw a conclusion which will depend on the evidence presented before it and its interpretation as per law. 9. 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. 10. Let the applicant- Mukeem, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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:- 17.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad