JUDGMENT :

(Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vashu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant, Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 6984 of 2022 (CNR No. UPLKO10119882022), Case Crime No. 0537 of 2022, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 376, 313, 328, 392 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No such incident took place, as alleged by the prosecutrix in the First Information Report. It is a case of false promise of marriage and the parties are consenting. Thus, the allegation of rape is false, even though, no ingredient of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is attracted against the applicant. The prosecutrix is major and with her consent, the physical relation was made by the appellant. Thus, the entire allegation is false and fabricated. Therefore, the present appeal be allowed and the appellant be released on bail.

4. Per contra, Sri Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no. 1 opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie, from the plain reading of the First Information Report, the cognizable offence is made out. In this case, chargesheet has already been submitted against the appellant. The prosecutrix has made balled allegation of committing rape several times by the appellant after giving some intoxic material and also demanding money from the prosecutrix. Even though, she was pregnant and on the pressure created by the appellant, abortion was made. As per the version of the FIR, the marriage of the prosecutrix was also solemnized with some other person. There also the appellant put pressure and threatened her to send the naked photographs and video to her husband which he has obtained at the time of first physical relation with the prosecutrix forcefully. The prosecutrix made a request to return all the alleged videographs and photographs, even though the pen drive, but the appellant refused and threatened her for dire consequences. Thus, the present appeal be rejected and the appellant is not entitled to get any relief by this Court.

5. In support of his argument, Sri Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar: (2019) 18 SCC 191, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed that there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and, in such cases, it must be very carefully examined whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. The Supreme Court after referring to various decisions has observed as follows:

"Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount