ORDER

Permission to appear and argue in person is granted.

2. We have heard the petitioner-in-person and perused the record.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad thereby issuing notice on the application for anticipatory bail filed by the respondent no.2 herein. While doing so, the learned Single Judge has also directed that respondent no.2 herein shall not be arrested in the meanwhile.

4. The First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the petitioner against the respondent no.2 is for the offences under sections 376(2)(F), 376(2)(N), 377, 354(A), 354(D), 503, 506(1) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

5. In such serious matter, when the High Court exercised its power of granting ad interim protection from arrest to the respondent no.2 herein, the least that is expected by the High Court is to record some reasons as to why it chooses to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.

6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it could clearly be seen, that no reason even for namesake has been recorded in the impugned order. We therefore remit th