Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66338 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14081 of 2025 Applicant :- Surendra Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Padmaker Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.367 of 2024, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Naubasta, District- Kanpur Nagar, 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 aged about 30 years. The FIR itself is delayed by about 41 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.4.2025 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 , 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, taking into consideration the inordinate delay in institution of FIR and the age of the victim and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed 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, 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- Surendra Rajpoot, 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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. 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 :- 29.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad