Anticipatory bail can be granted despite serious allegations if investigation is complete and there is no indication of misuse of prior protection granted by the court.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gite, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Ms. Sawant, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No2. and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent- State.

2. By this applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNSS ”) the Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.327 of 2025 registered on 14^th October 2024 with Indira Nagar Police Station, District Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ IPC ”).

3. The prosecution case set out in paragraph No.2 of order dated 22^nd October 2024 passed by a learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Bail Application No.2166 of 2024, which reads as under :-

“2. It is the case of the prosecution that, since the year 2022 informant was working as a Teacher. She came in contact with the applicant and started depositing P.F. amount. They became acquainted with each other and thereafter under the promise of marriage he started taking her to the hotels. There he had physical contact with her. Time and again he has taken Rs.5,00,000/- from her. When she used to ask for money he used to quarrel with her and used to threaten her that he would make her obscene video viral. She had given Rs.40,000/- from the credit card of her brother to the applicant. In fact the applicant has contended that, the informant has kept extra marital affairs with him. He has never taken any amount from her. She has never given any amount to deposit in P.F. Account. The relationship between the applicant and the informant started in the year 2022 and till 2024 she has not taken any action. Only to grab the money she has lodged the report. Hence, prayed that anticipatory bail be granted.”

4. It is the submission of Mr. Gite, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, that the relationship between the Applicant and the First Informant i.e. Respondent No.2 was consensual relationship. He further submits that as far as the financial transactions between them are concerned, the same have nothing to do with the consensual relationship. He submits that the said deposit is concerning P.F. account. He further submits that on several occasions, both the parties have deposited certain amounts in the account of each other. He further submits that in any case chargesheet is filed and therefore the Anticipatory Bail be granted.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Sawant, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2 submitted that the relationship was not consensual. The Applicant although married represented the First Informant that he would marry with her by getting divorce and therefore, the Respondent No.2 kept the relationship. She submitted that huge amounts are paid by the First Informant in the Account of the First Informant as he was demanding money from time to time on the pretext that he would marry with the First Informant. She further submitted that he has threatened to make viral videos of the First Informant and by giving the said threats she was subjected to sexual assault. Ms. Sawant, learned Counsel also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Anural Soni vs State of Chhattisgarh , (2019) 13 SCC 1 as well as on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489. Learned Counsel also relied on the order dated 15^th October 2025 passed by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1495 of 2025. She also relied on the ju