Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Complaint Case (Criminal) No. 2288 of 2015 filed by Non-applicant No. 2 for non-bailable offence wherein an arrest warrant has been issued, the instant a application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail has been preferred by the applicant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint case was filed by Respondent No. 2 Smt. Alpa Bhargava Pandey wife of Gaurav Pandey before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, for the offence u/s 354-A, 392 323, 294, 506-B read with section 34 of IPC and the said complaint was filed against six persons namely Lavi Mishra, Lav Mishra, Manisha Mishra, Smt. Babita, Avani Kumar Mishra and Kush Mishra. The background of the case is that one Lavi Mishra was married to Ashish Pandey who is stated to be brother-in-law of Alpa Bhargava, the complainant. Reading of the complaint which is filed as Annexure A-2 would show that the marriage of Ashish Pandey, brother-in-law of complainant was fixed with accused Lavi Mishra who is sister-in-law of applicant. It is alleged that while the engagement was going on 07.10.2013 at the residence, applicant Lav Mishra entered into the room and tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant. Subsequently, the complaint further purports that when the marriage was being performed on 13.11.2013 at the residence of complainant which is situated at Sundar Nagar, Raipur, at that time, applicant Lav Mishra along with other co-accused who have been named in the complaint as accused forcibly had taken away the cash of Rs. 60,000/- from complainant and thereafter further took the complainant to a room and assaulted her with a slap and further abused. On these allegations, the complaint was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the instant complaint is a counter blast to a report which was lodged by Lavi Mishra, wife of Ashish Pandey when she was subjected to matrimonial dispute and torture and the offence was registered u/s 120-B, 323, 328, 354, 307, 377 & 506 of IPC. He would submit that after such report was made, the jurisdiction was challenged before Allahabad High Court and the criminal proceedings having been stayed, the subsequent complaint was filed on 04.06.2015. He would submit that the allegation on the face of it itself would demonstrate that all the facts have been exaggerated to suppress the report which was earlier made by Lavi Mishra on 20.02.2015. He would submit that the alleged incident of outraging modesty of complainant is stated to have taken place on 07.10.2013 at the time of engagement, however, no report was made and subsequently when the marriage was solemnized on 13.11.2013 another offence wherein Rs. 60,000/- is said to have been snatched with physical force was complained. He further submits that the allegations itself would show the falsity on the face of it and is a result of counter blast.

4. He further submit that the applicant is working as Junior Scientist in Bhabha Atomic Research Center at Mumbai and on the basis of complaint so registered he was served with summon on 25.11.2015 with a date of appearance on 27.11.2015, as such, a request was made for extension of time and the matter was fixed for 23.12.2015. When the complaint was taken up on 23.12.2015, an application u/s 317(1) Cr.P.C., was filed on behalf of applicant on medical ground stating that he was suffering from acute back pain and prayer was made for exemption of personal appearance and another date was prayed for. However, the trial Court rejected such application u/s 317 Cr.P.C., and issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant. Therefore, against issuance of such warrant, an application for anticipatory bail was filed which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Raipur. Hence, the instant petition. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that in the facts of the present case, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Stat