JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Adnan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2023, under Sections 376,316,506 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Deoband, District-Saharanpur, during pendency of trial.

3. There is allegation against the applicant that he befriended the victim for the last one year and committed the offence of rape on false promise of marriage for one year of her live-in relationship with him. When victim became pregnant he gave medicine for abortion of foetus. She requested the applicant to marry her then, but he refused to marry her. The applicant made incriminating video of the victim and on the basis of the same he threatened her and committed offence of rape all through against her.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., has admitted that she was having relationship(live-in) with applicant for one year and entered into physical relation with consent with applicant and got pregnant. Thereafter applicant refused to marry her and First Information Report was lodged against him.She has made allegation that two more persons committed offence of rape against her. As per ossification test report of the victim she has been found to be of 19 years. Therefore she is major not minor.

5. There is no medical evidence against the applicant of committing offence under section 316 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 18.4.2023 and has no criminal history.

6. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that as per school leaving certificate of class VIII, the victim is aged about 16 years and 8 months only. He has further submitted that applicant may be directed to marry the victim since he has spoiled the life of the victim.

7. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has rejoined and submitted that victim has been married with some other boy therefore there is no possibility of marriage with applicant.

8. Learned counsel for informant has disputed this argument being against correct factual position.

9. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for grant of bail to applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

10. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that this is another case where after enjoying the live-in-relationship the young couple have parted ways. The girl, like in majority of cases, has lodged FIR in vain bid to enter into secure relationship of marriage with the applicant and come within ambit of the socially accepted norms and relationship of marriage.

11. On the face of it the relationship of live-in sounds very attractive and lures the youth but as the time passes and middle class social morality / norms start staring in their face, such couples gradually, realize that their relationship has not social sanction and it cannot continue for life. They start feeling that in the absence of social acceptance of their relationship, they cannot live a fulfilling and normal social life. Their children will also face social eradication and may blame them for life. Some fortunate ones, who are only exceptions, continue with the same or get married. In majority of cases the break-ups take place between the couple.

12. After break-up it becomes difficult for the female partner to face the society. The middle class society does not looks upon such separated female as normal. From social ostrication to indecent public comments become part of her post-live-in relationship ordeal. Then she somehow tries to get her live-in-relationship with the male partner get converted into relationship of marriage having social sanction. In this bid FIR like the present one comes into existence. The family