JUDGMENT 1. This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.464/2022 registered at P.S. - Nilganga, District Ujjain (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 20.8.2022 prosecutrix made a written complaint before P.S.-Nilganga, District Ujjain (M.P.) by stating that on the pretext of marriage the applicant made physical relationship with her. In the year 2015 present applicant first time met her and after sometime he told her that he loves her and wants to marry with her. Due to physical relationship with the present applicant, prosecutrix became pregnant in the year 2020. When she asked for marriage, applicant every time has postponed the marriage. On 22/11/2022 she gave birth to a child and after that she came to know that applicant is already married but applicant continued to have physical relationship with her. After six months applicant denied for the marriage with her. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. 4. Prosecutrix uses two different names in several documents. 5. Prosecutrix is a major lady. Prosecutrix has admitted that present applicant and she were living together in live-in-relationship for the past seven years and all the expenses of the prosecutrix have been borne by the applicant. Prosecutrix has filed an affidavit stating that she was living in live-in-relationship with the present applicant. 6. Prosecutrix has been blackmailing for the lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only). When applicant refused to give such amount then prosecutrix lodged an false FIR against applicant. He is a permanent resident of District Ashoknagar. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. 7. In support of his contention learnd counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in case of Shreekanth Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala dated 06.10.2022 passed in CRL No.9201 of 2021. 8. Per-contra, counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that age of the prosecutrix is 22 years and at the time of incident she was minor. Therefore, her consent is immaterial. State of Kerala dated 06.10.2022 passed in CRL No.9201 of 2021. 8. Per-contra, counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that age of the prosecutrix is 22 years and at the time of incident she was minor. Therefore, her consent is immaterial. Applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. Hence, he does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 9. Counsel for the respondent/ State also opposes the application and prays for its rejection. 10. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order passed by the court below. 11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation and also taking note of the fact that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident; agreement of live in relationship cannot be considered as a valid agreement. In view of the prima facie evidence available against the applicant, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 12. Accordingly, this MCRC is dismissed. C.C. as per rules.