ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 255 of 2022 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 376, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. The factual matrix of the case in a nutshell is that victim girl aged about 22 years has lodged a written report before Lalpur Police Station, Ranchi on 08.12.2022 against the present petitioner who happens to be police Sub-Inspector Posted at Lalpur Police Station. The prosecuterix visited with the petitioner at Lalpur Police Station in connection with a case, thereafter, both used to talk together through telephonic call. The prosecuterix was residing in a girls hostel while pursuing her studies. It is further alleged that the petitioner and prosecuterix used to go outside for visiting some places and also promised to marry her and established sexual intercourse with her. The prosecuterix’s mother was also communicated about their marriage. It is further alleged that on 20th November, 2022 present petitioner solemnized marriage with the prosecuterix in a temple situated at Lalpur Police Station when she informed about her pregnancy. Thereafter, present petitioner left her at hostel saying that his parents did not agree to recognize this marriage due to different caste. On 3rd December, 2022, petitioner settled his marriage with one girl, namely, Neha. Prosecuterix protested the said marriage and also went to the house of the petitioner, but she was condemned unheard and was threatened. She also went to the room of the petitioner for taking back some of her commodities and also attempted to talk with him but her phone number was blocked. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that allegation against the petitioner about commission of rape on false promise of marriage is out and out not tenable. The contents of FIR and the statement of victim girl depicts in clear terms that petitioner has solemnized marriage with the informant at Lalpur in a temple situated at Police Station. There is no allegation that at any point of time the petitioner has committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, who happens to be the major educated lady. The contents of FIR and the statement of victim girl depicts in clear terms that petitioner has solemnized marriage with the informant at Lalpur in a temple situated at Police Station. There is no allegation that at any point of time the petitioner has committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, who happens to be the major educated lady. The FIR further fortifies that the marriage could not be recognized by family members for which petitioner cannot be blamed. It is further submitted that the prosecuterix on earlier occasion also had instituted Mahila P.S. Case No. 28 of 2017 dated 03.09.2017 registered for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 and 6 POCSO Act and Section 67/67A of the IT Act against some known accused persons, wherein the victim and her family members have turned hostile and resultantly accused persons were acquitted from the charges vide judgment dated 13.08.2019. It is alleged by witnesses during investigation that huge amount was realized by the informant/prosecuterix of this case in that case. It is further submitted that no specific date, time, place and year about commission rape with the prosecutrix has been mentioned in the FIR or in her statement recorded during investigation of the case, rather, in her counter affidavit victim has filed some photographs with the petitioner in compromising position and also putting vermillion on her forehead. She has also relied upon annexure A submission of report by Incharge Mahila Apradh Anusandhan Vibhag, addressed to Director General Crime Investigation Department Jharkhand Ranchi about enquiry in connection with fair investigation of this case which clearly shows that since two years ago petitioner and prosecuterix were in visiting terms and even after lodging this FIR. On 21.02.2023 the prosecuterix along with petitioner went to Maa Residency Hotel Bariyatu, Ranchi booked a room no. 505 and stayed together over night. The prosecuterix has stated that in that night also sexual intercourse took place with the petitioner. It is further submitted that allegation about pregnancy of prosecuterix is falsified from her medical examination report and she was directed to undergo fresh medical examination but did not comply as yet. The petitioner has never entered into false promise of marriage and it is not a case of the prosecution also. Petitioner is thoroughly innocent. It is further submitted that allegation about pregnancy of prosecuterix is falsified from her medical examination report and she was directed to undergo fresh medical examination but did not comply as yet. The petitioner has never entered into false promise of marriage and it is not a case of the prosecution also. Petitioner is thoroughly innocent. There is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, influencing witness or victim and fleeing from Justice. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient materials showing direct involvement of the petitioner in a serious and heinous offence, which is severely punishable, hence, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. 6. It is here pertinent to mention that the Indian Penal code does not have any specific Section on making false promise of marriage, courts have often seen such cases and currently dealing with them under Sections of I.P.C. dealing with rape and consent. Cases around this claim most often states that a women’s consent for sexual intercourse taken by a man with a promise to marry them later on, which was not fulfilled later. Therefore, that consent was made through a “false promise”, and hence the act should constitute rape as defined u/s 375 read with Section 90 of the I.P.C. 7. Section 375 I.P.C defines what constitutes rape and it further lists seven types of consent that, if violated, would amount to rape. These include consent taken while the women is intoxicated, through fear of death or hurt or when a man has sexual intercourse with a women without her consent or against her will.” It defines “consent” as “an equivocal voluntary agreement when the women by words, gestures or any form of verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act”. Here, allegation of “false promise to marry” stem from a conjoint reading of Section 375 and Section 90 I.P.C. Section 90 I.P.C. says that if the consent is given by a person under” fear of injury or under a misconception of fact”, and if the person doing the act knows that the consent was given due to such fear or misconception, then that consent is invalid. 8. For the first time the Hon’ble apex Court has deliberated on consent based on “misconception of fact” and whether it would amount to rape u/s 375 I.P.C. in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 . The Court dealt with a case of a couple, who engaged in sexual intercourse, following which the woman became pregnant. She alleged that the accused had promised to marry her and later lodged a complaint, when the marriage did not take place. The court held that in such a case, a false promise to marry could not be construed as a misconception of fact, as the man and woman were both aware of that they would face opposition to that marriage from their families. Therefore, she gave consent to the act freely. The Court said that she must have known the consequences of the act particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their marriage may not take place at all on account of caste consideration. 9. The court laid down two conditions to be fulfilled for the application of Section 90 I.P.C. Firstly, it must be shown that consent was given under a misconception of fact. Secondly, it must be proved that the person, who obtained the consent should have had reason to believe that the consent was given as a result of the misconception. 10. The Apex Court also said that “there is no straight jacket formula for determining whether consent given to sexual intercourse is given under misconception of fact.” It was said that in each case the evidence before it must be considered, as well as the surrounding circumstances, to prove each and every ingredient of the offence including the absence of consent. 11. In the case of Deelip Singh Vs. 11. In the case of Deelip Singh Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 203 , the Apex Court acquitted a man convicted of the offence of rape, who had sexual intercourse with a women but on later occasions continued the same on promise of marriage, but did not marry her. 12. The court said, “we have no doubt that the accused did hold out the promise to marry her and that was the predominant reason for the victim girl to agree to the sexual intimacy with him.” But it said that there was no evidence to be sure that the accused had no intention to marry her, from the beginning. It termed the case one of “breach of promise” to marry rather than a case of false promise to marry. The Court also held that there can be no denial of the fact that the appellant did commit a breach of promise to marry, for which the accused is prima facie accountable for damages under Civil law”. 13. Recently in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) S.C. a distinction between “false promise of marriage” & breach of promise is clarified as under. It is said that where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time was not to abide by it from the beginning itself, but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the woman’s consent. Meanwhile, a breach of promise itself cannot be said to be a “false promise” the court said. It observed that there is a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding by its maker that it will be proper and the breach of a promise which is made in goodfaith but subsequently not fulfilled”. 14. In Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & another (2021) S.C. the top court relied upon its (2019) ruling and summarized the legal position by saying that a woman’s consent with respect of Section 375 I.P.C. must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act”. It said that whether the “consent” was vitiated by “misconception of fact”, two ingredients must be fulfilled. State of U.P. & another (2021) S.C. the top court relied upon its (2019) ruling and summarized the legal position by saying that a woman’s consent with respect of Section 375 I.P.C. must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act”. It said that whether the “consent” was vitiated by “misconception of fact”, two ingredients must be fulfilled. First, the promise of marriage must be false, made in bad faith and with no intention of marriage should be immediate relevant or bear direct nexus to woman’s decision to engage in sex. 15. More recently, On January, 30, the Apex Court in Naim Ahmed Vs. State (2023) said that every breach of promise to marry is not rape. “one can’t deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise” . The Court said: “It is neither appropriate not feasible for courts to draw any conclusion or return any finding at the stage of bail of an accused as to whether a promise of marriage made to a prosecuterix was false or in a bad faith. Such a finding must be left to the trial court to be decided on the basis of through evaluation of evidence led by prosecution.” 16. Considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel, judicial pronouncement above by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the factual background of this case, prima facie this case appears to be breach of promise of marriage due to cost consideration. Contested question of facts has to decided on merits through evaluation of evidence laid by prosecution. It appears that petitioner is government employee have no criminal background, there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecuting evidence or witnesses and cooperation in the investigation, hence, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Contested question of facts has to decided on merits through evaluation of evidence laid by prosecution. It appears that petitioner is government employee have no criminal background, there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the prosecuting evidence or witnesses and cooperation in the investigation, hence, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 255 of 2022 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. It is made clear that any expression on merits of the case shall not prejudice the investigation/trial of the case, which are, demonstrated only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application.