Anticipatory bail is not a right and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly in serious allegations where custodial interrogation is necessary to protect the investigation.

ORDER :

T Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.152 of 2024 of Dwaraka Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417 , 420 and 376(2)(n) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.10.2024, the Defacto Complainant filed a report with the police stating that she is a divorced woman who had posted her bio-data in a WhatsApp group on 23.01.2023 in search of a suitable match for a second marriage. In connection with this, A1 came into contact with her in October 2023 and expressed an interest in marrying her. A1 sent nude photographs of men and women in compromising positions to her, despite her resistance stalked continuously from October 2022. On 07.12.2023, A1 arrived at Visakhapatnam Airport, took the Defacto Complainant to his house, and requested her to come to his bedroom to view the gold ornaments of his first wife. Taking advantage of the same, A1 committed rape on her forcibly without her consent and threatened the Defacto Complainant not to tell anyone about the forceful sexual intercourse. Thereafter, on 08.12.2023, A1 telephoned her, stated that he no longer wished to marry her, and began evading her telephone calls.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, with the delay in lodging the complaint suggesting an attempt to extort money. The petitioner is a public servant (Technical Officer in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Visakhapatnam) within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC/ Section 28 of the BNS , 2023. In the event of his arrest, there is a strong likelihood that he would be suspended pending disposal of the case. The petitioner is willing to face trial and is ready to provide solvent sureties for his release on anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that given the serious allegation against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required during an investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report.

6. In Mahipal V. Rajesh , [ (2020) 2 SCC 118 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the Court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, prima facie or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime.

7. A Court doesn't need to give elaborate reasons while granting bail, mainly when the case is at the initial stage, and the allegations of the offences by the accused would not have been crystallised as such.

8. In Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , [2015 SAR (Criminal) 156] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:

“Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty”.

9. The material on record shows that the defacto complainant, a divorced woman, posted her bio-data in a WhatsApp group on 23.01.2023 seeking a second marriage. In October 2023, A1 contacted her, expressing interest in marrying her. On 07.12.2023, A1 invited her to his house and asked her to view his first wife's gold ornaments in his bedroom. Taking advantage of the same, A1 forcibly committed rape on her without her consent and also threatened her not to tell anyone about the forceful sexual intercourse.

10. The learned counsel