JUDGMENT Nandita Dubey, J. - Heard. 2. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 418/2020 registered at Police Station Bina, District Sagar (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 506 of IPC. 4. As per prosecution, the complainant filed a complaint on 05.07.2020 stating that she is a widow lady of 38 years of age having three children. Her husband died in the year 2013. She has alleged that in 2016 she came in contact with the present applicant and had a love affair with him. She has further stated that the present applicant gave her an assurance of marriage that he will look after her children also and on that assurance she continued to have physical relationship with him. However, six months back, he had gone to Indore and had refused to marry her. Hence, the present complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is a 22 year old boy and the complainant is trying to forcibly extract money from him. It is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. It is stated that as per the complainant, the firsts incident happened in the year 2017 and she has filed a complaint after three years. Learned counsel has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 . 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has read out the statement of the complainant also. 7. After going through the case diary statement and the FIR, it appears that the complainant who is 38 years old lady having three children had a love affair with the present applicant and has indulged in sexual relationship with the applicant for last three years. It appears from complaint that applicant had earlier refused to marry the complainant despite that she continued in relationship with the applicant and filed the present complaint when he left for Indore. 8. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it fit to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, this applicant is allowed. 9. It appears from complaint that applicant had earlier refused to marry the complainant despite that she continued in relationship with the applicant and filed the present complaint when he left for Indore. 8. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it fit to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, this applicant is allowed. 9. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Anuj shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer. 10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:- 1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The applicant will make himself available as and when called for interrogation and cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending 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 or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during trial; 5. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and 6. If the applicant commits any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court. 11. A typed copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry to the Office of the Advocate General and to Mr. Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer, on their respective e-mail addresses, for intimation to the police station concerned. 12. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.