ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 192/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Coat gate 3. District Bikaner 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 5. Offences added, if any -- 6. Date of passing of impugned order 03.11.2023 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. As per the allegations levelled in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she submitted herself before the petitioner on account of false pretext of marriage. He further submits that it is even mentioned in the FIR that she was in contact with the petitioner since last three months while continuing physical relationship. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR. The incident alleged to have taken place does not inspire confidence rather seems to be very flimsy and unconvincing. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. In the present case, the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (4) Crimes 37 (Bom.), decided on 12.3.2014, will hold good. The relevant part of the above mentioned judgment reads as under:- "that to satisfy the sexual urge is a free decision of every major individual irrespective of gender. Thus, promise to marry in any manner, cannot be a condition precedent to have sex. However, the behavioural pattern and psyche of Indian society has to be taken into account while dealing with this issue. Thus, promise to marry in any manner, cannot be a condition precedent to have sex. However, the behavioural pattern and psyche of Indian society has to be taken into account while dealing with this issue. Since many generations, virginity of a woman is considered precious and there is amoral taboo that it is a responsibility of a woman to be a virgin at the time of marriage. However, today, the young generation is exposed to different interactions with each other and is well informed about sexual activities; similarly, the late marriages and economic independence are also relevant factors. The society is trying to be liberated but carries baggage of different notions of morality wherein sex before marriage is a matter of censure and hence, it is a hush-hush subject. In fact, it is an issue before the social thinkers to educate and guide the society. Under such circumstances, a young woman who is in love with a boy forgets that to have sex is her option like her counterpart but somehow refuses to take the responsibility of her decision. If at all she has indulged into sexual activities even on a promise to marry, the girl may land up emotionally and physically in a pathetic situation after break up. To marry someone is a matter of choice. It cannot be imposed on anybody. Only because two individuals are sexually involved with each other, it is not compulsory for them to marry. Initially, a boy and a girl genuinely may want to marry and are true to their emotions and establish sexual relationship, however, after sometime, they may find that they are not mentally or physically compatible and one decides to withdraw from the relationship. Under such circumstances, nobody can compel these two persons to marry only because they had sexual relationship. It is necessary to have a healthy, objective and legal approach towards these incidents. There may be moral bonding between the two persons when they indulge into sexual activities with promise to marry and it is also a fact that ultimately women only can remain pregnant and therefore, she suffers more than the man. However, in law, this cannot be labelled in any manner as a rape." 6. There may be moral bonding between the two persons when they indulge into sexual activities with promise to marry and it is also a fact that ultimately women only can remain pregnant and therefore, she suffers more than the man. However, in law, this cannot be labelled in any manner as a rape." 6. A bare perusal of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 CrPC reveals that on 09.03.2023, when the petitioner went to the house of the prosecutrix, there was no one at her house but after sometime, her father-in-law arrived and went into his room; it is incomprehensible as to how was it possible for the petitioner to intoxicate her and commit rape upon her while her father-in-law was present in the house. The prosecutrix has also alleged in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marrying her but it is worth pondering upon that how can an already married woman agree to establish physical relations with another man who is not her husband upon being lured with the promise of marriage. It is also emanating from her statements that she used to exchange talks on telephone and was also in contact with the petitioner since last three months. The submission of learned counsel that the prosecutrix is a mature lady, who knows what is good and what is bad for her and is aware about her welfare, did not raise any complain for so long, seems to be worth considering. It is a matter of common nature relating to a love relationship between a girl and a boy wherein the girl was maintaining physical relations with the boy but when things turned sour between them, she raised an accusation of rape against him. The allegations made by her against the petitioner regarding the commission of rape on false pretext of marriage do not seem to be convincing. The genuineness of the allegations is a matter to be adjudged after appreciation of evidence during trial and therefore, it is made clear that the above observations shall not influence the trial judge in any manner while presiding over the matter. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 7. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant - Jai Singh Alias Jaideep Rajpurohit S/o Shri. Rameshwar arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.