JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2023 at Police Station-Tiwaripur, District-Gorakhpur under Sections 376-D, 384, 323, 504, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 14.09.2023. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 31.10.2023. The following arguments made by Sri Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Shiv Vilas Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the first informant and Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: 1. The victim and the applicant were intimate. They had consensual physical relations. 2. They were caught in a compromising position and their relationship was exposed. 3. The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship with the applicant and has been registered to deflect attention from the conduct of the victim. 4. The victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted to intimacy with the applicant. She has stated that she went to the applicant's house for his birthday celebrations. She consumed a drink which was laced with drugs and rendered her unconscious. As per the said statements, the applicant then blackmailed with threats of circulating her indecent videos. 5. Medical report of the victim does not depict consumption of any intoxicant. 6. The applicant did not capture or circulate any indecent photographs or video of the victim. None were recovered from the applicant. 7. The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at various public places but did not raise an alarm or did she resist the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party. 8. Medical evidence to establish the commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution. 9. Major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the recitals in the F.I.R. discredit the prosecution case. 10. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 11. The applicant is not a flight risk. 9. Major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the recitals in the F.I.R. discredit the prosecution case. 10. The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. 11. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Saif Ali Hashmi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iii) The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023). The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.