Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142335 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26072 of 2025 Applicant :- Prince Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Mohd Shamshad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ishtiyak Ali, holding brief of Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2025, under Sections 69, 351(3), 352 of BNS, Police Station Birno, District Ghazipur, 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. The FIR is delayed by about 21 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim by her physical appearance seems to be major and as per medical examination report, her age has come out to be 21 years. The victim seems to be a consenting party as is but evident from her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS. The informant has converted a failed consensual physical relationship into a criminal case. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. 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 delay in institution of the FIR coupled by the fact that the victim is a consenting party, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Prince Rajbhar, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 :- 20.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad