JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 668/2020 dated 31.10.2020 registered at P.S. Moti Nagar under Sections 376/328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC').

2. The facts, in brief, leading up to this petition are as follows:

a) It is stated that the prosecutrix is a housewife who joined a social media website as a means of comfort because she was living with a husband who was short-tempered. Two years before the FIR was registered, she received a friend request from one Raj Suri (the Petitioner herein) and they soon exchanged mobile numbers. The Petitioner disclosed that he was disturbed on account of his wife's death and became emotionally close to the prosecutrix. The Petitioner would ask the prosecutrix to meet him often, however, she was not inclined to do so. It is stated that on 28.10.2020, the Petitioner requested the prosecutrix to meet him as he wished to discuss something that could not be conveyed over the phone. The prosecutrix met him and the meeting concluded safely.

b) It is stated that on 30.10.2020, the prosecutrix received a call from the Petitioner who informed her that he was near her house. Though the prosecutrix was initially hesitant as her husband and children were not home, she relented and asked the Petitioner to come up the stairs. It is stated that the Petitioner was inebriated and upset. at this juncture, the prosecutrix asked the Petitioner if she could call her husband, however, the Petitioner stopped her from doing so. It is stated that the Petitioner brought alcohol along with him and emotionally blackmailed the prosecutrix into drinking alcohol as a result of which she felt giddy. It is stated that the Petitioner then took advantage of the prosecutrix's vulnerable condition and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. It is stated that thereafter, the Petitioner left the house, and when the husband of the prosecutrix returned in the evening, the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to him. On the basis of this incident, the instant FIR was registered.

c) It is stated that after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Petitioner without his arrest. Pursuant to the same, the Ld. M.M. summoned the Petitioner who did not appear and sought for exemption. The Ld. M.M. rejected the request of the Petitioner and issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the Petitioner for 26.02.2021.

d) The Petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant application seeking bail in the event of arrest and seeking stay of the NBW issued by the Ld. M.M.

3. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that charge-sheet has been filed without arrest of the petitioner. He further states that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C have not been initiated against the petitioner. He states that after charge-sheet was filed, apprehending arrest, at the time of his appearance before the Court, the petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court. He states that the Trial Court has dismissed the application primarily because the petitioner had not joined investigation on time. He states that once charge-sheet was filed and investigation was complete qua the petitioner, the Trial Court could not have dismissed the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail primarily on the ground that the petitioner had not joined the investigation. His presence could have been ensured after rejecting his application for exemption from appearance or by issuing a bailable warrant.

4. Mr. Hariharan further submits that the prosecution story is false and concocted. He has argued that the instant matter is a classic case of honey-trap and that the prosecutrix and her husband have been previously involved in a similar case. He has informed this Court that one Manish Tanwar had also been similarly trapped in this manner by the prosecutrix an