High Court

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime/FIR No.0362 of 2024, under Sections 69, 352, 115 (2) & 351 (2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Gudamba, District - Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 12.09.2024 against the applicant and his unnamed family members, stating that the applicant is related to the informant and in August, 2018, he proposed the informant to marry her. Thereafter, the applicant got employed in Indian Air Force and he went to training. After the applicant had gone for training, his family members started harassing the family members of the informant asking them to get the informant married with some other boy. When the applicant returned after training in the year 2020, he stayed with the informant for five days and made physical relations with the informant. After some time, the applicant lost communication with the informant and declined to marry her.

4. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 29.11.2024:- "1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

3. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime/FIR No.0362 of 2024, under Sections 69, 352, 115 (2) & 351 (2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Gudamba, District - Lucknow.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 2020 on the pretext of promise of marriage. Therefore, the applicant established physical relation with the informant/ prosecutrix couple of times. As per further allegation, now the applicant is refusing to get married with the prosecutrix and he and his family members have threatened the informant/ prosecutrix for dire consequences, if she lodges any complaint against them. Sri Pranjal Krishna has submitted that the present applicant was having friendly relationship with the informant/ prosecutrix but has never established physical relation with her. Now, the applicant has been selected in the Air Force, therefore, pressure is being mounted from the side of the informant/ prosecutrix for marriage but the present applicant is not able to get married with the prosecutrix as he has recently started his career. Attention has been drawn towards recent judgment of the Apex Court in re; Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471, referring paras 18, 22 & 27 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if relations of the parties are long and they established physical relation, such relation may be considered as consensual one. Para-27 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "27. Thus, from the above it appears that it is more of an extra-marital affair during the aforesaid period without any insistence by the complainant for getting married to the appellant. The fact that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates that the relationship was a consensual one. In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact."

6. Sri Krishna has further submitted that the present applicant is cooperating in the investigation and he undertakes that he shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of interim anticipatory bail, if granted by this Court. Further, the present applicant is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present applicant may be granted interim anticipatory bail in the light of dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

8. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

9. List in the week commencing 20.01.2025.

10. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Ajay Tiwari shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; (ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court."

5. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith statements of the informant recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, her educational certificate and medical reports.

6. Although, the opposite party No.2 has put in appearance through counsel, but has not filed any counter affidavit. Although, in the statement of the informant, she has supported the FIR allegations, but no abnormality has been reported in the medico legal examination report.

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the one taken at the time of grant of interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.11.2024. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of an order dated 29.11.2024. is made absolute and this anticipatory bail application stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid interim order. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Gurpreet Singh [Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime/FIR No.0362 of 2024, under Sections 69, 352, 115 (2) & 351 (2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Gudamba, District - Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 12.09.2024 against the applicant and his unnamed family members, stating that the applicant is related to the informant and in August, 2018, he proposed the informant to marry her. Thereafter, the applicant got employed in Indian Air Force and he went to training. After the applicant had gone for training, his family members started harassing the family members of the informant asking them to get the informant married with some other boy. When the applicant returned after training in the year 2020, he stayed with the informant for five days and made physical relations with the informant. After some time, the applicant lost communication with the informant and declined to marry her.

4. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed on 29.11.2024:- "1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

3. Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime/FIR No.0362 of 2024, under Sections 69, 352, 115 (2) & 351 (2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Gudamba, District - Lucknow.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the year 2020 on the pretext of promise of marriage. Therefore, the applicant established physical relation with the informant/ prosecutrix couple of times. As per further allegation, now the applicant is refusing to get married with the prosecutrix and he and his family members have threatened the informant/ prosecutrix for dire consequences, if she lodges any complaint against them. Sri Pranjal Krishna has submitted that the present applicant was having friendly relationship with the informant/ prosecutrix but has never established physical relation with her. Now, the applicant has been selected in the Air Force, therefore, pressure is being mounted from the side of the informant/ prosecutrix for marriage but the present applicant is not able to get married with the prosecutrix as he has recently started his career. Attention has been drawn towards recent judgment of the Apex Court in re; Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471, referring paras 18, 22 & 27 wherein the Apex Court has observed that if relations of the parties are long and they established physical relation, such relation may be considered as consensual one. Para-27 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "27. Thus, from the above it appears that it is more of an extra-marital affair during the aforesaid period without any insistence by the complainant for getting married to the appellant. The fact that the complainant continued to have a physical relationship for a long time without any insistence on marriage would indicate the unlikelihood of any such promise made by the appellant for marrying her and it rather indicates that the relationship was a consensual one. In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact."

6. Sri Krishna has further submitted that the present applicant is cooperating in the investigation and he undertakes that he shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of interim anticipatory bail, if granted by this Court. Further, the present applicant is having his permanent address, therefore, there is no flight risk.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present applicant may be granted interim anticipatory bail in the light of dictum of the Apex Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

8. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

9. List in the week commencing 20.01.2025.

10. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant- Ajay Tiwari shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; (ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court."

5. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith statements of the informant recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, her educational certificate and medical reports.

6. Although, the opposite party No.2 has put in appearance through counsel, but has not filed any counter affidavit. Although, in the statement of the informant, she has supported the FIR allegations, but no abnormality has been reported in the medico legal examination report.

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no good ground to take a view different from the one taken at the time of grant of interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.11.2024. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of an order dated 29.11.2024. is made absolute and this anticipatory bail application stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid interim order. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Gurpreet Singh [Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]