JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0467 of 2022 under Sections 376, 313, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj.

3. As per contents of first information report, there was interaction between first informant and applicant 11 years prior to the date of incident and an affair had ensued between the two in the year 2018 with physical relations being established in the year 2018 upon promise of marriage by applicant to first informant. It is sated that due to physical relations established over a period of years, the first informant became pregnant four times but forcible abortion was resorted to at the instance of applicant. It is also stated that subsequently when applicant's business flourished, he lost interest in marrying the first informant and subsequently denied marriage itself. It has also been stated that when the last abortion took place in the year 2022, pressure was exerted upon first informant by applicant to abort the same due to which sonography of first informant was conducted. It is stated that when first informant put pressure upon applicant to marry her, he refused saying that he was already married.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact the parties were in a consensual relationship as would be evident from the long tenure of relationship between the two indicated in the F.I.R. itself. As such, it is submitted that there is a clear distinction in a promise of marriage being falsely extended at the time of inception and subsequent breach of marriage in order to attract the provisions of Section 90 read with Section 375 and 376 I.P.C., ingredients of which are missing in the present case. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the statement of Doctor and report of sonography to submit that the same do not corroborate the allegations of abortion. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan & another, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 599, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in 2021(115) ACC 732.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that the contents of F.I.R. have been clearly corroborated by first informant in subsequent statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore clearly makes out a case of physical relation being established on the false pretext of marriage thereby attracting the conditions of Section 376 I.P.C.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 2