1. This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 337/2013.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the averments in the complaint are that the informant has been practicing at Mysore for the past two years. Prior to this complaint, informant had filed a complaint before Mahila police station, Mysore against one Shivakumar. In the said case 'B' report was submitted. To question the said 'B' report, informant had approached accused No.2 to engage his services, where she came in contact with the petitioner herein and the said case ended in compromise. It is stated that the petitioner herein had divorced his wife for this informant and told her that he is going to marry her and would secure job for her and also would set up a house at Bangalore. The further allegation is that on 16.11.2013 at 5.30 p.m. petitioner herein said to have called the informant to Hotel Monarch situate on Mysore-Hunsur road offering her to give birthday treat. Though the informant refused, petitioner told the informant that he needs to discuss with her about the old case. Thereafter, the informant rushed to the aforesaid hotel, where the petitioner herein said to have committed rape on her and told the informant not to inform anybody and that he would marry her. When she brought this fact to the notice of petitioner's father-accused No.2, he is said to have threatened her saying that his son is innocent and has not committed any wrong and that if she files any complaint he would do away with her life. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered arraying the petitioner as accused No.1 and father of the petitioner as accused No.2.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Mysore Bar and his father, who has arrayed as accused No.2 is also a senior advocate, practicing at Mysore Bar. Petitioner is innocent and has not at all committed the alleged offences. Only to tarnish his image, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has submitted that even if the entire material placed by the prosecution is taken as true, it does not make out a case against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and even the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. In the earlier occasion a similar complaint was filed against one Shivakumar, who is also a practicing Advocate at Mysore Bar and in the said case, police after investigation of the matter had filed 'B' report and the Court after giving opportunity to the complainant herein considered the objections and ultimately, accepted the 'B' report in the said case. The antecedents of the complainant goes to show that petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case. Petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by the Court and will assist the investigating officer and he will not tamper any of the prosecution witnesses. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 312 and also the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5100/2013 dated 30.8.2013. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision relied upon before the lower Court reported in 2013(4) Crimes 329 (Kar). Accordingly, he has prayed that petitioner may be admitted to bail.

5. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that prima facie material is placed by the prosecution to show the involvement o