Bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically; it requires proof of supervening circumstances, witness tampering, or that the original order was perverse or ignored fundamental evidence, especially in long-standing consensual relationships where fraudulent intent at the inception remains to be proven at trial.

O R D E R

1. Petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „B.N.S.S.‟) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Complainant for cancellation of Bail of the accused person/Respondent No.2 granted vide Order dated 29.04.2025, in FIR No. 120/2025 Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner/Complainant/Victim and the Respondent No. 2/Accused, namely, Mohd. Ziaur Rehman, were in a relationship since 2017. On 01.01.2018, the Respondent No. 2 established physical relationship with the Petitioner, allegedly, on the false pretext of marriage which continued till 2024 when the Respondent No. 2 got married to another woman, deceiving and emotionally exploiting the Complainant. Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of digital chats, Notices and the Complainant’s consistent statements, the Trial Court did not appreciate the continuing deception and the psychological trauma caused to the Prosecutrix and granted Bail mechanically.

3. The reliance on Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and Anand Kaushal vs. State, was erroneous as the present facts were distinct from those involved in those two cases.

4. The reliance is placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra , (2019) 9 SCC 608 where it was held that consent under misconception of fact is not consent in law, and such cases demand cautious scrutiny at the time of Bail.

5. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that the Prosecutrix being a “mature UPSC aspirant,” nullified her victimization. Maturity does not extinguish deceit, especially when the trust was abused by the Respondent No. 2 in a prolonged relationship. Grating Bail in such serious offences, sends a wrong signal to society and encourages perpetrators to evade accountability by misusing consent in intimate relationships. The cancellation of Bail is sought on the grounds:

(i) Misrepresentation of Legal Precedents;

(ii) Seriousness of Allegations;

(iii) Risk of Tampering with the Evidence/Witnesses;

(iv) Flight Risk; and

(v) Public Interest.

6. It is further contended that the Bail had been granted prematurely despite the pending investigations with no protection to the Complainant. The three-pronged test laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565 i.e. the nature of accusation, severity of punishment and the possibility of tampering with evidence, has not been considered. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Order dated 29.04.2025 vide which the Bail has been granted to the Respondent No. 2, be recalled and he be committed to custody.

7. The Petitioner has placed Reliance on Y. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 7 SCC 124; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madan Lal, (2023) - Supreme Court; P. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 5 SCC 403; Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422; Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559; X vs. State of Gujarat, (2023)-Supreme Court; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar , (2020) 2 SCC 118; State vs. Mohd. Ifran, (2024) -Delhi High Court and X vs. State, (2023) Karnataka High Court, in support of his Case.

8. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein the details of the facts and the investigations, are stated in detail.

9. It is submitted that during the investigations, Notice under Secti