The legal principle established is that consent given under a false promise of marriage must involve an active and reasoned deliberation, and the promise of marriage must have been a false promise given in bad faith.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the ‘Act 1989’) the appellant-original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191008230427 of 2023 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Gandhinagar.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant is behind bar since 28.08.2023. Investigation in the present case is complete. Charge-sheet is filed and therefore, all the evidence are lying with Investigating Officer and Court. Therefore, question of tempering with the evidence does not appear. Reading of FIR, he would submit that it is case of false promise. It is submitted that relationship entered between the appellant and victim are clear consent. Both are major and they knew each other since they were serving together. Thus, it is clear case of consensual relationship. It is further submitted that FIR does not disclose any words which indicates that victim was humiliated for her caste. Thus, prima facie, no case under Atrocities Act is made out. It is therefore, submitted to grant bail to the appellant.

3. Learned advocate for the first informant submitted that repeated physical relationship has been maintained by the appellant under false promise of marriage. It is submitted that appellant was knowing that his child marriage took place and yet he has maintained relationship with the victim knowing fully well that he could not marry her. It is case of obtaining consent under false promise of marriage. Taking this Court through order passed by learned Sessions Court, learned advocate for the first informant would submit that even learned Trial Judge has recorded that the appellant is not available as he is changing his job. There is flight risk and therefore, the appellant may not be granted bail as it would derail entire trial proceedings. On such submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the appeal.

4. Joining submissions and adopting submission of learned advocate for the first informant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would submit that it is clear case of giving false promise of marriage and it was intention to have physical relationship with the victim and therefore, the appellant may not be granted bail.

5. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties, let refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and in Para 17 and 18 it is held as under:

“17. In Uday vs. State of Karnataka the complainant was a college going student when the accused promised to marry her. In the complainant’s statement, she admitted that she was aware that there would be significant opposition from both the complainant’s and accused’s families to the proposed marriage. She engaged in sexual intercourse with the accused but nonetheless kept the relationship secret from her family. The court observed that in these circumstances the accused’s promise to marry the complainant was not of immediate relevance to the complainant’s decision to engage in sexual intercourse with the accused, which was motivated by other factors:

“25. There is yet another difficulty which faces the prosecution in this case. In a case of this nature two conditions must be fulfilled for the application of Section 90 IPC. Firstly, it must be shown that the consent was given under a misconception of fact. Secondly, it must be proved that the person who obtained the consent knew, or had reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such misconception. We have serious doubts that the promise to marry induced the prosecutrix to consent to having sexual intercourse with the appellant. She knew, as we have observed earlier, that her marriage with the appellant was difficult on account of caste considerations. The proposal was bound to meet with stiff opposition fr