The court granted bail due to the lack of prompt complaints and the nature of the relationship, emphasizing compliance with bail conditions to prevent misuse.

Headnote:
(A) B.N.S. Act, 2023 - Sections 69, 89, 352, 351(3) - Bail application - Applicant accused of exploiting complainant under false promise of marriage - Allegations of physical relations and forced abortions discussed - Delay in lodging F.I.R. questioned - Court finds no prior complaints or evidence of coercion - Applicant granted bail with conditions. (Paras 3, 5, 9, 10)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - Factors such as nature of allegations, relationship history, and absence of prior criminal record taken into account - Court emphasizes the need for compliance with bail conditions. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The applicant has been in jail since December 9, 2024, accused of multiple offenses under the B.N.S. Act, including allegations of exploitation and physical relations with the complainant under false pretenses. The F.I.R. was lodged several days after the alleged incident, raising questions about the credibility of the allegations.

Findings of Court:
The court, considering the relationship history and the absence of prompt complaints, allows bail, emphasizing the applicant's undertaking to comply with conditions.

Issues: The primary issues addressed include the credibility of the allegations, the delay in filing the F.I.R., and the relationship dynamics between the applicant and complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of prompt complaints and the nature of the relationship suggested that the applicant may not pose a flight risk, thus justifying bail. The court highlighted the importance of complying with bail conditions to avoid misuse of liberty.

Result: Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Sri Abhishek Mishra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the complainant. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Akhlaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Alok Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant Sarfaraz is languishing in jail since 09.12.2024 in Case Crime No.0275/2024, under Sections 69, 89, 352, 351 (3) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 , Police Station Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.), which has been lodged on 06.12.2024 of the alleged incident dated 02.12.2024 without explaining the delay. In the F.I.R., the allegations have been levelled against four accused persons including the present applicant. As per the F.I.R., the present applicant and the prosecutrix were in relation for the last eight years, when both were minor. The present applicant allegedly promised to get married with the prosecutrix, but now he is denying for such promise. On the pretext of false promise of marriage, he established physical relation with her. While recording her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has stated that she is having relation with the applicant for last nine years and during that period they established physical relation and she became pregnant for three to four times and the applicant provided pills for abortion and the pregnancy aborted after taking pills. The allegation of assault and beating as well as snatching the phone has also been levelled. While recording her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., she has stated that she was in relation with the applicant for last 10 years and she reiterated the other story narrated in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.. In this statement she has stated that she had gone to a clinic of one doctor for getting her pregnancy aborted, but there is no material or evidence with the prosecution in the case diary to suggest that the prosecutrix had gone to the clinic of any doctor to get her pregnancy aborted.

6. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that so far as allegation is concerned, the story is more-or-less intact, but the period of relation has not been indicated same in all the statements. Besides, if the applicant forcefully had compelled the prosecutrix to take pills for abortion any prompt compliant etc could have been lodged, but no such compliant has been lodged. Presently, the applicant is aged about 22 years and the prosecutrix is aged about 24 years and if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, then both were in love affairs when they were minor and have established physical relation during that period. If the investigating agency had received such material or evidence, the impugned F.I.R. might have been lodged under the provisions of POCSO Act, besides the Section under which this F.I.R. has been lodged.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case only against the present applicant, as the other co-accused persons have been dropped from the charge-sheet. There is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the complianant have opposed the prayer for bail. Sri Abhis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document