ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-police. 2. Petitioner is the sole accused in a criminal case registered in Crime No. 264 of 2015 on the file of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 420, 506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After registering the case by the respondent-police Section 376 of IPC has been incorporated in the FIR. The petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. Hence, he has filed this application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release. The case on hand relates to the alleged rape said to have committed by this petitioner on a lady on the assurance of marrying her. 3. Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that this petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant by assuring her to marry. But the petitioner did not keep up his promise and he threatened her with dire consequences and also abused her with filthy language taking her caste. Learned Government Pleader further submits that he has committed heinous offence, hence he is not entitled for bail and requested this Court to dismiss the bail application as there is prima facie case against the present petitioner. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that complainant and petitioner are acquainted with each other since two years and there was a long-standing relationship between the petitioner and the complainant who is major which could not be construed as rape. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Udaiy v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2003 Kar. 2512 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1639 : 2003 Cri. L.J. 1539 (SC) : 2003 SCC (Cri.) 775 : (2003)4 SCC 46 . Accordingly, learned Counsel requested this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. The main allegation against this petitioner is that on 3-4-2015 at 6 p.m. the petitioner went to the house of the complainant and abused in filthy language in the name of caste. As his family members are against their marriage so he would pay a sum of Rs. 5. The main allegation against this petitioner is that on 3-4-2015 at 6 p.m. the petitioner went to the house of the complainant and abused in filthy language in the name of caste. As his family members are against their marriage so he would pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and asked her to forget him otherwise he would take away the life and would be settled in his native place. In this regard, a complaint came to be registered with the respondent-police against this petitioner. 6. Perused the records. 7. Admittedly, victim lady is major and petitioner is aged about 37 years. The petitioner had provided recruitment to the complainant and since from two years they loved each other. The petitioner had proposed to marry her and she has consented for the same. On the basis of the said assurance, the petitioner had sexual contact on several occasions with the victim. 8. As per the decision rendered in the case of Uday, having sexual contact with a grown up lady on the assurance of marriage will not amount to rape; at the best one of breach of promise under Section 417 of IPC. 9. Now that the substantial portion of the investigation has been already completed and charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Petitioner has undertaken to obey any of the condition which may be imposed on him. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that by imposing proper conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Hence the following: ORDER 1. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. 2. He shall mark his attendance once in a month on every second Saturday between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. before the Jurisdictional Police Station without fail till the completion of investigation. 3. He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 4. He shall attend the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing without fail. 5. Petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities. If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail from the concerned Sessions Court.