after significant time has elapsed cannot be termed as a false promise. In the present case, admittedly, the promise to marry was made more than six months before the registration of the FIR. If the victim was an adult at the time of the incident, whether her consent was vitiated by misconception of fact arising out of the applicant’s false promise to marry cannot be established at this stage, and the same would be a matter of trial. 25. It is relevant to note that this Court, by order dated 05.03.2024, had granted interim protection to the applicant. The applicant has since joined investigation. 26. It is not in doubt that order for grant of pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use the same as a shield. At the same time, it cannot be denied that great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached with the arrest. In cases where the accused has joined investigation, cooperating with the Investigating Agency and is not likely to abscond, the custodial interrogation should be avoided. 27. It is not disputed that the police has filed the chargesheet in the present case after completing the investigation. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant should not be released on bail since there are certain aspects of investigation pending. 28. Offence as alleged is heinous in nature, however, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the object of jail is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused during the trial. 29. The applicant is stated to be 28 years of the age and he has clean antecedents. No purpose would be served by allowing the applicant to be interrogated in custody.
