Consent in a long-term relationship precludes the presumption of misrepresentation in the absence of initial deceit.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

5 23-12-2025 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. An order, dated 26.06.2024 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, West Champaran, at Bettiah, in A.B.P. No. 1123 of 2024, is under challenge in the present appeal preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellant in connection with Nautan Police Station Case No. 171 of

2024, dated 05.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 /313/420/493 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been rejected.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the appellant, whose house is adjacent to the house of the respondent no. 2/informant, was in relationship with the informant for the last three years. It has been alleged that taking advantage of the love relationship and on the pretext of marriage, the appellant established physical relationship with the informant, due to which the informant became pregnant twice and the pregnancy was aborted. The informant wants to marry with the appellant, but he is going to marry with some other lady.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the informant and the appellant both are neighbours and it is a fact that there was love relationship between them, which went on for more than three years. The physical relationship between them was consensual. The allegation in the First Information Report that the physical relationship was established on the pretext of marriage is completely baseless and the entire allegation has been made with ulterior motive. The relationship between the two was out of free consent and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the appellant. There is no allegation in the First Information Report that from the very inception of the relationship, the appellant had no intention to perform marriage with the informant. As such, the consent which was given by the informant cannot be said to be obtained by misrepresentation and and by misconception of facts.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant/respondent no. 2 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the matter was sent or mediation. The mediation failed due to the conduct of the appellant where he flatly refused to perform marriage. He next submits that after completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and have gone through the materials available on record, including the impugned order.

7. The appellant and the respondent no. 2 were major when they started their love relationship about three years back. Admittedly, the relationship continued for fairly along period, i.e. three years. The reason for lodging the First Information Report by the informant is that the petitioner has broken his promise of marriage with the informant. In the First Information Report, there is no specific allegation that from the very inspection/beginning, the intention of the appellant was not to marry the informant. The long drawn relationship between the informant and the appellant for about three years gives rise to the presumption that the relationship