her and on such pretext of marriage, he sexually exploited her. The F.I.R. also mentions that physical relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 was regularly being established as the petitioner was tensed on account of her family issues. Upon a bare reading of these allegations, it further appears that the petitioner is an educated adult lady working as a constable in the police force where the opposite party no.2 was also a colleague and at best, the case may have involved in a consensual relationship which eventually could not fructify into a marriage. The very fact that the physical intimacy between the parties, as alleged by the petitioner, has continued over a considerable period of time, it cannot be concluded that the same was done under misconception of fact, as contemplated in Section 90 of the IPC. It also has to be considered that the parameters of grant of bail stand on a completely different level than that of cancellation of bail already granted. In a case where the order granting anticipatory bail, all the facts and circumstances including the materials collected during the investigation have been considered, coupled with the fact that there is no supportive medical evidence with regard to the allegation of abortion etc., which has fallen for consideration before the Court concerned, this Court does not find any
