Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93340 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17718 of 2025 Applicant :- Amir Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0197 of 2024, under Sections 69 and 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is stated to have befriended with the victim on facebook and had subsequently taken her to several places including Nanital and Azmer and had established corporeal relationship with her on the false promise of marriage. The allegation is that applicant had taken Rs.50,000/- from her, subsequently he is stated to have refused to comply with the said promise. 5. It is further 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. The allegations are per se false. FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no recovery of any photo or video from the applicant, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2025 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. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 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, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration that FIR is delayed and there is no medical corroboration of incident 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- Amir Ahmad, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 :- 30.5.2025 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad