JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the defacto complainant praying this Court to set aside the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge at Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. No. 2904/2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(n), 417, 420 and 506 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant and respondent No. 2 are Engineers by profession working in the Company by name Enfotic Digital Engineering Private Limited since 2019. In the month of February 2020, respondent No. 2 had proposed her when he called her to the Orion Mall at Bangalore and the petitioner rejected the proposal saying that she belongs to Lingayath Community and he belongs to Vokkaliga Community and their family will not agree for the marriage proposal. This being the scenario, gradually they developed close relationship and on the pretext of marrying the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had committed forcible sexual intercourse on different dates at various places against the wishes of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had assured and promised the petitioner that he would marry her in due course, on this pretext, respondent No. 2 had committed sexual intercourse continuously. When the things stood thus, on 12.12.2020, respondent No. 2 took the petitioner to Goa and they stayed for three days in Goa. There he repeatedly committed the sexual intercourse with her against her wish and when the petitioner pressurized respondent No. 2 for marriage, he refused to marry her saying that caste will come in the way of their marriage and further his parents will not agree for intercaste marriage and when the petitioner further pressurized respondent No. 2, he had threatened her that he would take away her life. Hence, the complaint is lodged. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 had approached the Sessions Court invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the same was rejected and subsequently on filing of the charge-sheet, approached this Court in Crl. P. No. 1376/2022 and this Court rejected the same. Thereafter, he was arrested and he was in judicial custody and filed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court was pleased to grant the bail. Hence, the present petition is filed for setting aside the said order. 4. P. No. 1376/2022 and this Court rejected the same. Thereafter, he was arrested and he was in judicial custody and filed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court was pleased to grant the bail. Hence, the present petition is filed for setting aside the said order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Judge has failed to consider the gravity, prima facie materials, specific overt-act against respondent No. 2 and the punishment stipulated for the offences and granted bail in a mechanical manner. The Trial Court ought not to have granted bail when the investigation is still under progress. The Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the whatsapp chats produced by respondent No. 2 while granting bail and no evidentiary value can be attached to the said whatsapp chats. Relying upon the whatsapp chat, the Trial Court exercised the discretion in favour of respondent No. 2. The learned counsel contend that at the earliest point of time, the Sessions Court as well as this Court had rejected the bail petition when the petitioner had approached the Court invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. taking note of the priority of the offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav And Another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 , wherein the Apex Court held that in view of gravity of offence and serious allegations of tampering of witnesses ought not to have granted bail. Giving prima facie finding on all points urged before the Court are permissible. While considering the successive bail application without recording the fresh ground and without considering the grounds on which the bail was cancelled earlier by the Supreme Court is violative of principle of binding nature of judgments of Superior Court. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that inspite of the Sessions Judge and this Court rejected bail considering the gravity of the offences, failed to consider the same while passing the order. 6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh v. State Of Rajasthan reported in AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 398 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos. 6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh v. State Of Rajasthan reported in AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 398 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos. 15 and 16, wherein the Apex Court discussed in detail and held that it is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has mis-conducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relief factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior Court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. 7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Imran v. Mr. Mohammed Bhava And Another passed in CRL. A. NO. 658/2022 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No. 26, wherein discussed with regard to bail granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower Court. In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the decisions cited hereinabove, enumerate certain basic principles which must be borne in mind when deciding upon an application for grant of bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix, which assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to the above-mentioned well-settled principles. 8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singla v. Union of India passed in CRM-M No. 23220/2020 dated 14.01.2021, wherein in paragraph No. 11 it is held that certificate under Section 65B of the India Evidence Act is available at the present moment to authenticate the said messages, the answer is negative. The recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 , has held that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required when reliance is being placed upon electronic record. Therefore, the same message would be of no evidentiary value as on date. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon these judgments would contend that the Court below has committed an error in relying upon the electronic evidence i.e., whatsapp messages and committed an error. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in her arguments would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has taken note of the whatsapp messages between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and also relied upon the whatsapp chat which clearly discloses that sexual act is only a consensual sex and consent is not obtained by making false promise. The learned counsel submits that both of them had been to different places and had sexual intercourse continuously and there was no any promise and also the victim/petitioner is aged about 25 years and know the consequences of the sexual act before marriage and also in the whatsapp chats when the marriage proposal was made by respondent No. 2 himself, she replied that no more talk with regard to marriage is concerned and the same has been taken note of by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order. Hence, no grounds are made out to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and no perverse order has been passed. 11. The learned counsel also placed on record several whatsapp messages and brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herself proposed before 14.02.2020 and whatsapp chats discloses the same. The learned counsel also places on record the whatsapp messages with regard to first physical relationship and with consent both had sex. The learned counsel also relied upon the document regarding visit made by both of them to Mangalore, Udupi and Goa and planning and buying of tickets and also for Mysore trip. The learned counsel also places on record the whatsapp messages with regard to first physical relationship and with consent both had sex. The learned counsel also relied upon the document regarding visit made by both of them to Mangalore, Udupi and Goa and planning and buying of tickets and also for Mysore trip. The learned counsel contend that he never promised to marry right from the beginning and brought to the notice of this Court the whatsapp chats between both of them, wherein she has stated that she is not interested in marriage and she does not have any plans of getting married and these documents clearly discloses that there was consensual sex. The learned counsel produced the whatsapp chats regarding the petitioner had finalized the groom and also communicated the same to respondent No. 2 before lodging the complaint. These documents substantiates that there was no any promise and it was only a consensual sex. 12. The learned counsel in support of her arguments relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Crl. P. No. 4598/2020 dated 05.11.2020, wherein discussed in detail regarding scope of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and formed an opinion that in the absence of any cogent material on record, the liberty of any person as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed on the mere ground of number of cases being pending against him and the powers has to be invoked sparingly and not mere asking of the cancellation of bail. 13. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Crl. P. No. 5865/2021 dated 13.01.2022, wherein also this Court held that promise of marriage and breach of contract will not attract the provisions of Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. 14. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sonu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others passed in Crl. A. No. 233/2021, wherein the Apex Court has held that consent of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. A. No. 233/2021, wherein the Apex Court has held that consent of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. 15. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. The State Of Jharkhand passed in Crl. A. No. 635/2020 dated 28.09.2020, wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to physical relationship on the pretext of marriage. The appellant alleged of conducting rape for four years. The prosecutrix alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The Courts below held appellant guilty. Whether the prosecutrix consented to the physical relationship under any misconception of fact with regard to promise of marriage by the appellant. Whether consent was based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage which the appellant never intended to keep since the very inception of the relationship. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. The appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship between the parties. The prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. Hence, it cannot be concluded that consent is obtained based on misconception of fact. 16. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others passed in Crl. The prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. Hence, it cannot be concluded that consent is obtained based on misconception of fact. 16. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others passed in Crl. A. No. 1165/2019 dated 21.08.2019, wherein the Apex Court held that where the promise to marry was 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 to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there was a misconception of fact that vitiates the woman's consent. On the other hand, a breach of a promise could not be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. 17. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others passed in Crl. A. No. 1443/2018 decided on 22.11.2018, wherein also there was a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The Court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether complainant had actually wanted to marry victim or had malafide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as later fell within ambit of cheating or deception. 18. The learned counsel also relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Uday v. State Of Karnataka decided on 19.02.2003 passed in Crl. A. No. 336/1996, wherein the Apex Court held that the prosecutrix was a grown up girl studying in a college. She was deeply in love with the appellant. She was, however, aware of the fact that since they belonged to different castes, marriage was not possible. In any event, the proposal for their marriage was bound to be seriously opposed by their family members and there is no evidence to prove conclusively that the appellant never intended to marry her and hence acquitted the accused. 19. The learned counsel relying upon these judgments and the principles laid down in the above judgments prays this Court to dismiss the petition. 20. 19. The learned counsel relying upon these judgments and the principles laid down in the above judgments prays this Court to dismiss the petition. 20. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in granting bail and whether such order amounts to a perverse order which requires interference of this Court by exercising the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.? (ii) What order? Point No. (i): 21. Having considered the grounds urged by both the learned counsel, admittedly both of them were working in same Company. It is also stated in the petition that earlier she has not given consent when proposal was made and later developed the relationship. It is emerged in the records that both of them had sexual intercourse in different places and also visited different places like Mysore, Udupi, Mangalore and Goa, wherein also they had sexual intercourse. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 places on record the whatsapp chats dated 11.02.2020, wherein the petitioner herself made proposal and also whatsapp chats are placed before the Court and the very petitioner herself is not intending to marry respondent No. 2 and no doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singla (supra) wherein in paragraph No. 11 discussed with regard to messages could be of no evidentiary value as on date relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. It has to be noted that while relying upon the electronic evidence, certificate under Section 65B is mandatory. But here is a case not considering the matter on merits and considering the bail petition and factual aspects of the case. It is settled law that while relying upon the electronic evidence, the certificate is necessary while marking the document, but to consider the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of considering the bail application, the Court can consider the whatsapp messages also since the allegation of promising to marry is alleged. But in the whatsapp chats, she herself has refused to marry him and also replied that no more discussion with regard to the marriage. 22. But in the whatsapp chats, she herself has refused to marry him and also replied that no more discussion with regard to the marriage. 22. The Trial Court also taken note of the whatsapp messages while passing the order i.e., whatsapp messages exchanged between them dated 09.02.2020 and 22.05.2020 and enlarged respondent No. 2 exercising the discretion and also observation was made that the whatsapp chats clearly goes to show that the complainant herself was in deep love with the petitioner and she intended to spend intimate time with him and they both had physical contact with consent and also taken note of there is a delay in lodging the complaint. It has to be noted that when the relief was sought under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, the same was rejected and before this Court also, when the relief was sought under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. it was rejected on the ground that there are serious allegations and the Trial Court exercised the discretion when the accused was in custody and invoked the jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Having taken note of the whatsapp exchanges between the parties, exercised the discretion. No doubt, the principles laid down in the judgments referred (supra) by both the counsel is with regard to the cancellation of bail as well as invoking an offence of promise to marry and not marrying the victim and having sexual intercourse. It is settled law that while exercising the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., if the order suffers from any perversity, then the Court can interfere or otherwise need not interfere with the findings and exercise the powers to cancel the bail. 23. In the case on hand, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court has not passed the reasoned order and failed to take note of the gravity of the offence and accusations and exercised the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and reason was also given why the Court is exercising the discretion. Unless the reasons are not capricious, the question of invoking Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. does not arise. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of evidentiary value under Section 65B of the Evidence Act i.e., certificate, the Trial Court ought not to have considered the same. Unless the reasons are not capricious, the question of invoking Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. does not arise. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of evidentiary value under Section 65B of the Evidence Act i.e., certificate, the Trial Court ought not to have considered the same. I have already made it clear that when marking the document i.e., electronic evidence, it is mandatory that certificate is required. The Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra) held the same reiterating the principles laid down in the judgments of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer case and also in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath held that need not necessarily file the certificate while filing the charge-sheet and the same is required while marking the documents. But now that is not the stage in the case on hand. While exercising the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., the Court can also look into the material and accordingly the Trial Court taken note of the whatsapp chat between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also placed the whatsapp chat, wherein the petitioner has given consent to marry a doctor and replied that other information is not respondent No. 2 business. After that only, the present complaint is filed and the Court has to take note of all these material into consideration. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, I answer the point No. (i) as negative. Point No. (ii): 24. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.