Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83103 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15749 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rayoof Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 03.05.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Rayoof Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0074 of 2025 , under Sections 64(1), 127(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 131, 333 of BNS and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 5. 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. 6. 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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The age of the victim is 19 years. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim is major, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Sonu Sonkar , 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall 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 :- 19.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad