Promise of marriage must be fulfilled; absence of criminal history and cooperation justifies bail despite serious allegations.

ORDER :

Navneet Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No.1263 of 2024, by which the prayer for regular bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 registered under Sections 69 , 351(2), 352/3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) (w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that admittedly, the victim informant is a major woman and both the appellant and the victim informant had been in the friendship through Facebook and thereafter they established the physical relationship under the promise of marriage.

4. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that both have been making the physical relationship several times and when she became pregnant, the appellant is alleged to have denied to marry with her and then this case is said to have been instituted. In this view of matter it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that no offence under Section 69 of BNS , 2023 is attracted in view of the fact that it is not a case of making promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the same because he did not suppress any identity and as such it is not a case that the appellant is alleged to have adopted deceitful means to take her consent.

5. Further, it has been pointed out that this appellant is in custody since 31.08.2024 and charge-sheet has been submitted and possibility of tampering the evidence is very remote and he has no criminal history and he is ready to cooperate in the trial of the case and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer for regular bail and stated that it is a clear cut case that the appellant had established the physical relationship under the pretext of marriage and when she became pregnant, he refused to marry with her and then this case was instituted and therefore it is thoroughly covered under Section 69 of BNS , 2023 but did not controvert this fact that there is no criminal history against this appellant.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case.

8. In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the order dated 07.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1263 of 2024 in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

11. In consequence thereof, the appellant named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Chatra in connection with Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant will cooperate in the trial, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned trial Court for the cancellation of bail as per the provisions of law.

12. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of