JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri D.P. Dutt Tiwari, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 98071 of 2021, under Sections 376, 420 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant stating that the complainant's marriage with the informant was settled and a bariksha ceremony was performed on 11.06.2021 and engagement was performed on 13.06.2021. Thereafter the applicant came to the complainant's home on an undisclosed date and persuaded her to make physical relations with her. Keeping in view her reputation and image, the complainant made physical relations with the applicant, although against her wishes. However, subsequently the applicant declined to marry the complainant. 4. The complainant supported the complaint allegations by her statements recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. The applicant has not been examined medically. 5. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 16.06.2023 passed by this Court. 6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant, annexing therewith a copy of a report dated 09.11.2021 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kakori, wherein he stated that during investigation, it came to light that at the time of engagement ceremony, the complainant's behavior was not good, which is the reason for breaking the alliance. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the complainant annexing therewith some photographs showing some cash and other articles given at the time of bariksha. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, the provision of Section 438 (6) Cr.P.C. has been reproduced and the contents of the counter affidavit have been verified as being true "to my personal knowledge on the basis of record and legal advice". Upon the defect in verification clause being pointed out, the learned counsel for the informant states that although the verification is not as per the provisions contained in Allahabad High Court Rules, he has written the verification clause as per the general practice prevalent amongst the members of the prestigious Oudh Bar Association. 8. Upon the defect in verification clause being pointed out, the learned counsel for the informant states that although the verification is not as per the provisions contained in Allahabad High Court Rules, he has written the verification clause as per the general practice prevalent amongst the members of the prestigious Oudh Bar Association. 8. Chapter IV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 deals with 'Affidavit and Oath Commissioners'. Chapter IV Rule 12 provides as follows:- "12. Facts to be within the deponent's knowledge or source to be stated.-Exception interlocutory applications, an affidavit shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. On an interlocutory application when a particular fact is not within the deponent's own knowledge, but is based on his belief or information received from others which he believes to be true, the deponent shall use the expression "I am informed and verify believe such information to be true", or words to that effect and shall sufficiently describe for the purpose of identification, the person or persons from whom his information was received. When any fact is stated on the basis of information derived from a document, full particulars of the document shall be stated and the deponent shall verify that he believes such information to be true." 9. The verification of the entire contents of the counter affidavit to be true 'to my personal knowledge, on the basis of record and legal advice' is not a verification as per the Rules as the deponent has to specify as to which part of the averments made in the affidavit are true to his personal knowledge, which part is based on the basis of information derived from records and which part is based on legal advice. Further, when some part of the averments made in the affidavit are based on the information derived from documents, copies of those documents are necessarily required to be annexed to the affidavit. 10. The aforesaid provisions needed to be clarified because of the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is a general practice prevalent amongst members of the Bar to draft verifications in a casual manner, against the provisions of the relevant Rules. 10. The aforesaid provisions needed to be clarified because of the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is a general practice prevalent amongst members of the Bar to draft verifications in a casual manner, against the provisions of the relevant Rules. However, the Court is not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant about such a practice being prevalent amongst members of the Bar as the Court seldom comes to encounter such carelessly drafted verification clauses in affidavits. 11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie it does not appear that the intention of the applicant was to deceive the complainant since inception. The complainant is aged about 28 years and she has stated that she had made physical relations with the applicant keeping into consideration her repute and social image. Obviously, being of matured age, the applicant is expected to understand the repercussions of her action. It appears that the FIR has been lodged after relations turned sour and alliance could not materialize in marriage being solmenized between the parities, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 16.06.2023 and no violation of any condition of interim bail has been pointed out either by the learned AGA or by the learned counsel for the informant. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant informs that the applicant has already furnished bail bonds in furtherance of the interim order. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed.