ORAL ORDER

Though notice is served to the complainant, none appears.

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the ‘Act, 1989’), the appellant – original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11207028240011 registered with Halol TownPolice Station.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the petitioner, the appellant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He would further submit that the petitioner has used the position of the victim and after making false promise of marriage, entered into physical relationship with the victim and section 90 of the IPC defined the consent in the present case as the consent of the victim is obtained under misconception of promise and later on, the petitioner turned away from his promise and therefore, present case would fall into the definition of “rape”. Hence, he submits to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant for the following reasons : -

(1) The investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed and the accused is behind the bar since 11.1.2024.

(2) The entire record is in safe custody of the investigating officer.

(3) The present petitioner is a resident of Vadodara having movable and immovable property and therefore, there is no flight risk from fleeing from justice.

(4) It is a case of consensual relationship between two major persons i.e. the petitioner and the victim. Hence, there is no case of rape.

(5) The further statement of the victim was recorded on 10.1.2024, which indicates that victim has married multiple times and has taken customary divorce with the earlier husband and was going to be engaged with another person and since the person whom the victim is going to be engaged came to know about the relationship of the victim with the petitioner and therefore, false complaint has been filed.

(6) The medical certificate also indicates that there is consensual relationship of the victim with the petitioner.

(7) Even, after considering what is stated in the FIR alleged to have attracted the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and it does not constitute casteist slur and derogated to a particular caste or said to have been spoken into public place.

(8) The appellant is behind bar since 11.1.2024.

(9) At this juncture, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi reported in 2005(8) SCC 21, held as under:-

“18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati V/ s. NCT, Delhi, 2001 4 SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh V/s. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence