JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A1 in connection with Crime No.45 of 2021 of Women Police Station, Krishna District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 493, 506 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 2(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC ST (POA) Act'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant belongs to SC community and she had completed B.Sc., B.Ed. in the year 2015. She went to Hyderabad for Group-I exams coaching. The accused, who belongs to Kamma community developed acquaintance with her and with his deceitful words, dragged the complainant into love net duly knowing her name, caste and other particulars. He also had intercourse with her. He got job in the year, 2019 in Kavali ward Sachivalayam and since then he started avoiding the complainant. Whe she personally went to him and asked for marriage, he stated that his parents will not agree for their marriage as she belongs to SC Mala community and threatened her and her elders with dire consequences. Basing on the same the present crime is registered and the petitioner was arrested on 24.05.2021. 3. Heard Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations made against the petitioner are false. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is innocent and he never made any promise to marry the complainant nor had any sexual intercourse with her. He submits that during the course of investigation Section 376(2) is added. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that simple breach of promise to marry will not amount to rape and even as per the complainant sexual intercourse had taken place out of consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "12. This Court has repeatedly held that consent with respect to Section 375 of IPC involves an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences of the proposed act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "12. This Court has repeatedly held that consent with respect to Section 375 of IPC involves an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences of the proposed act. An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as the various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, consents to such action." 5. In Dhruvaram Muriladhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "15. ... An inference as to consent can be drawn if only based on evidence or probabilities of the case. "Consent" is also stated to be an act of reason coupled with deliberation. It denotes an active will in mind of a person to permit the doing of the act complained of." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if it is assumed that there is intercourse between the complainant and the petitioner, it was done with the consent of the complainant and hence, the same cannot be termed as 'rape'. He further submits that even if all the allegations are taken on its face value they do not attract the offence under SC ST (POA) Act, as the alleged abuse in the name of the caste was made by the family members of the petitioner. He submits A2 to A4 have been enlarged on pre-arrest bail and as the petitioner is languishing in jail since 24.05.2021, his case may be considered for grant of bail. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submits that there are clear allegations of cheating against the petitioner and investigation is pending. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail at this stage. 8. Taking into consideration the above submissions as well as the facts that A2 to A4 are enlarged on pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is languishing in jail since 24.05.2021, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail at this stage. 8. Taking into consideration the above submissions as well as the facts that A2 to A4 are enlarged on pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is languishing in jail since 24.05.2021, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/A1 shall be enlarged on bail on execution of self bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 - cum - X Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not tamper with the evidence or try to influence the witnesses. In case the petitioner violates the conditions, Police are at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.