SANTOSH KUMAR MITTALversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9644 of 2026

Santosh Kumar Mittal
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :   Raghubir Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :   G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State
and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No. 57 of 2026, under Section 69 BNS, Police Station
Jagdishpura, District Agra with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he
has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are
trying to arrest the applicant. It is further contended by the learned
counsel that a false and frivolous first information report was lodged by
the informant-victim, wherein she alleged that she was subjected to rape
on the false promise of marriage. It is admitted case of the victim that she
was a major girl, about 49 years of age and that she had been in touch
with the applicant for the last six years and during this period they
enjoyed a consensual relationship. It is next submitted that the FIR is a
result of broken relationship and the same was lodged when the
relationship turned sour between them. The version of the victim kept
changing and does not inspire much confidence to prosecution case. The
applicant was protected during the course of investigation and his arrest
was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.5.2025
in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2874 of 2025. Now, the charge-sheet
has been submitted in this case on 14.8.2025, therefore, there is no
                                                             NABAIL No. 9644 of 2026
                                   2


requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

4. Further submission was made by the learned counsel that ocular
version is not corroborated with medical evidence. It is also submitted
that throughout the prolonged period of six years, the victim kept
completely quite about the alleged sexual abuse, meted out to her, by the
applicant until she learnt that the applicant was not going to marry her.
Additionally, the long gap of six years between the first alleged act of
sexual intercourse and continued relationship for six years, till the filing
of the first information report makes it clear that the matter pertains to a
lave affair. When the relationship turned sour, the FIR was lodged by the
victim due to ulterior motives. A case of consensual relationship between
two adults have been converted into a criminal offence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as
and when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It
has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory
bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the
investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
by the Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

7. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.

8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
     Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
     been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
     or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
     in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
     has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
     is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
                                                             NABAIL No. 9644 of 2026
                                   3


     arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
     arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
     Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
     service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
     above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles
     under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
     (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
     bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
     investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
     released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
     to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
     out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
     not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
     and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
     agree more with this."

9. In the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Versus State of Maharashtra
and Another, (2024) 11 Supreme Court Cases 398, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made observation that where physical relationship is
maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be
said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because
of the alleged promise of marriage. A woman may have reasons to have
physical relationship other than the promise of marriage like, personal
liking for the male partner.

10. In case of Prashant Versus State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5
Supreme Court Cases 764, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the
accused or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with
him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part.

11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan
                                                     NABAIL No. 9644 of 2026
                               4


Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2528 observed that on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting
tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of
criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be
invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence,
coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship
into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence
but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.
Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse
of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound
concern for the judiciary already facing a heavy load and calls for
condemnation.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of
U.P. And Another, 2025 (4) SCC 197 held that where a woman
willingly engages in a long-term relationship with a man, fully aware of
its nature, and there is no cogent evidence to show that such relationship
was induced by a misconception of fact or a false promise of marriage
made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of
rape under Section 376 of the IPC.

13. In the case of Pramod Kumar Navratna Versus State of
Chhattisgarh and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 154, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the Courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in identifying the genuine cases filed under Section 376(2)(n) of
the IPC by identifying the essential ingredients to constitute the said
offence. Such genuine cases must be clearly demarcated from the
litigation that arises from the cases of consensual relationships between
consenting adults going acrimonious on account of dispute and
disagreement or a future change of mind.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravish Singh Rana
Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055 has
made observation that the two able minded adults, if maintained a long
term physical relations, then the presumption would arise that they have
voluntarily chose the consensual relationship and subsequent non-
fulfillment of promise of marriage would not attract any offence.
                                                       NABAIL No. 9644 of 2026
                                5


15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar Versus State of Maharashtra And Another, (2019) 9 Supreme
Court Cases 608 held that where the promise to marry is false and the
intention of the maker, at the time of making the promise, itself was not to
abide by it, but to deceive the woman so as to convince her to engage in
sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that vitiates the
woman's "consent". However, mere breach of a promise cannot be said to
be a false promise. Therefore, to establish a false promise, it would have
to be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of
upholding his word at the time of making the promise.

16. In Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, (2021) 18 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the
FIR and the proceedings upon noticing that relationship between the
accused and the victim was of consensual nature and parties were in
relationship for a period of one and a half years, and subsequently the
accused had expressed disinclination to marry the prosecutrix which led
to registration of FIR.

17. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits, and the case of the applicant is
squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, a case for anticipatory bail
is made out.

18. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant-Santosh Kumar
Mittal involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till
the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned;

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 9644 of 2026
                                                                   6


                                    (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
                                    threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
                                    to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; and

                                    (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    19. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                    Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.



                                                                                      (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Lalit Shukla




Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad