The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of personal liberty and the need to consider the totality of circumstances before denying anticipatory bail.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR no.67/2011, u/S 376/420/495 IPC registered by PS Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.9.2010, the complainant one Geeta, a permanent resident of Dehradun filed a complaint in Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi against the present petitioner/Jagdish Nautiyal working as a Private Secretary in the National Human Rights Commission. In the said complaint, the complainant levelled allegations that she was married to one Sushil Kumar in the year 1994 and from the said wedlock, she was blessed with a daughter, who was born in December, 1995. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant Sushil Kumar expired because of heart attack on 22.3.2010. The present petitioner was on friendly terms with the deceased husband of the complainant and he started visiting the complainant. The present petitioner is alleged to have made a proposal of marriage to the complainant and stated that he was unmarried and he would take care of the complainant as well as her daughter. Believing the representation of the present petitioner, the complainant is stated to have contracted the marriage on 10.5.2010 in Buddhist Temple, Mandir Marg, New Delhi near Birla Mandir as per Hindu Law. Photographs and necessary documentations in this regard were completed. After the marriage on 10.5.2010, the petitioner applied for registration of the marriage on 17.5.2011 in the Marriage Registration Office, Dehradun whereupon, he filled up the requisite forms in his own handwriting and showed his status as unmarried. It is alleged by the complainant that after the marriage, the petitioner cohabited with the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that on 4.6.2010, the complainant learnt that the present petitioner was already married to one Sunita and was living with her at the address mentioned in the Memo of Parties. It is also stated by her that the petitioner was having two children from the said marriage. Because of these revelations, the complainant confronted the petitioner, whereupon, the petitioner is stated to have started abusing, misbehaving, threatening the complainant to teach her a lesson. This resulted in strained relationship between the present petitioner and the complainant whereupon the present complaint was filed by the complainant alleging that she had been sexually exploited and her life has been spoiled by the present petitioner by obtaining her consent for marriage by misrepresentation. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a case of rape, cheating and bigamy was registered against the present petitioner.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the Court of Sessions which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge on 29.8.12 holding that the allegations against the present petitioner are serious and it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed in the High Court.

5. I have heard Mr.Sud, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP. The private counsel representing the complainant had also assisted the learned APP.

6. The main contention of the learned senior counsel is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is stated that the petitioner and his wife were the Members of a Yoga club where the complainant also used to visit and she was aware of the fact that the petitioner is a married person. It is denied by him that the petitioner had contracted a marriage with the complainant. It is stated by him that it was only a friendly relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. It is also stated by him that in a Buddhist Mandir, no Hindu marriages can be contracted because no formalities are required to be carried out as is required to be done in an Arya Samaj Temple.

7. It is c