The seriousness of the offence and prima facie evidence from the FIR are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.76 of 2022 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

3. a case under Sections 417 and 376 IPC was registered against the petitioner in the above crime.

4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in love with each other. They both went to various places like beach, park, hotels etc. On 13.07.2021, the petitioner and the de facto complainant went to araku and there he promised to marry her and thereby induced her to have sexual intercourse with him and accordingly he had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he resiled from his promise and did not marry her. He also refused to marry her when she requested him. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has cheated the de facto complainant and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de facto complainant is aged about 23 years and as such it is a case of consensual sexual intercourse which they had. He would further submit that the petitioner never promised to marry her and he did not induce her to have sexual intercourse with any such false promise. Therefore, he contends that the facts of the case do not attract any such offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376 IPC. He would submit that both of them are only friends and as such they moved at different places in Visakhapatnam. So, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Learned additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that the contents of the F.I.R and the facts of the case clearly show that the petitioner has promised to marry the de facto complainant and thereby induced her to have sexual intercourse with him and thereafter he has resiled from the said promise and cheated the de facto complainant. Therefore, having regard to the serious nature of the offence, he would submit that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

8. as rightly contended by learned additional Public Prosecutor, a perusal of the contents of the F.I.R clearly show that the petitioner has promised the de facto complainant to marry her and thereby induced her to have sexual intercourse with him and thereafter he had resiled from the said promise and did not marry her and cheated her. Therefore, the accusation made against the petitioner is prima facie well founded from the contents of the said F.I.R. So, having regard to the serious nature of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. The two judgments of the apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharastra Criminal appeal No.1165 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharastra are the judgments relating to quash of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They are not relating to grant of bail in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.