The court's decision was based on the consideration that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the conditions imposed to address the apprehension of absconding or tampering with witnesses.

JUDGMENT

S. Rachaiah, J. - The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.376 of 2022 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 420 and 417 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant.

2. Heard Sri.N.Udaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Renukaradhya R.D., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the alleged incident took place on 30.10.2022 and the complaint was lodged on 14.11.2022 and the reasons for inordinate delay in lodging the complaint is not forthcoming. The allegations made in the complaint are baseless and same are made with an intention to harass the petitioner. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the bail petition is not maintainable in law or on the facts of the case. He further contended that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and he may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

'Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?'

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

6. It is alleged in the complaint that, the complainant and the accused have been acquainted with each other for eight years and both have developed intimacy and it is alleged that, the petitioner committed rape on the pretext of marrying her. Later, he refused to marry her. Hence, she has lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence under sections 504, 420 and 417 of IPC. It is further alleged that, a case was filed before RMC Yard Police Station in Crime No.177/2019 for the offences under sections 354, 354(A)(D), 504, 506, 509, 417, 493, 376 read with section 34 of IPC and the police have filed a charge sheet which is re-numbered before the trial Court as S.C.No.364/2021. When the case was posted on 05.08.2022, the petitioner requested the complainant that he would marry her and accordingly, both have agreed to marry each other. A date was fixed for marriage on 30.12.2022 and informed the relatives, friends and colleagues about the marriage. The petitioner and his mother, sister and brother-in-law had been to Gayathri temple and refused to marry the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint has been lodged for the offences under sections 417, 420, 504 of IPC. It is noticed here that, the trial Court granted anticipatory bail in respect of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and rejected the anticipatory bail against the petitioner / accused No.1. On careful perusal of the offences mentioned in the FIR, it appears that, the offences are neither punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High