IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of anticipatory bail based on the factual matrix, conduct of the parties, and lack of threat perception from the prosecutrix.

ORDER

1. The applicant vide the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.180/2023 dated 19.07.2023 registered under Sections 313/323/376/377/506/509/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] at PS.: Sector 23 Dwarka, Delhi.

2. As per FIR, the prosecutrix met the applicant in February, 2022 in the College where the applicant was a 'Student', wherein the prosecutrix was/ is a 'Professor'. The prosecutrix alleges that in May, 2022, while she was on an official trip to Manali, they got married in a small temple and the applicant promised to legally marry her in future.

3. She further alleges that she also met the family members of the applicant on 04.06.2022 at his home who had no objection to their marriage. Later, on 04.02.2023, the applicant disappeared and it was only on 07.02.2023 that the applicant contacted the prosecutrix and informed her that he was being kept captive in his maternal-aunt's home.

4. Further, as per FIR, after coming to know about the pregnancy of the prosecutrix in April, 2023, the applicant and his family forced her to abort the child, in furtherance of which, a pill was administered to her by the applicant. Thereafter, in June, 2023, the prosecutrix came to know about her being pregnant again. On sharing the same with the applicant, he was very happy. Later, on 01.07.2023, the applicant took an advance of Rs.2,50,000/- from the prosecutrix and left. On 02.07.2023, the applicant booked an appointment of the prosecutrix with a Gynecologist in Gurgaon for 04.07.2023. Lastly, as per FIR, the prosecutrix last contacted the applicant on 04.07.2023 at 08:00 AM.

5. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not seek to harm/ threaten the prosecutrix. On the contrary, he submits that the prosecutrix has at multiple instances portrayed her intentions to intimidate the applicant and his family. He further submits that the present FIR is filed with the sole intention of harassing the applicant who is a 20 year old Student in the College, where the prosecutrix was a Professor.

6. The learned senior counsel further submits that the applicant has participated in the investigation at multiple instances between 31.07.2023 and 12.09.2023. He further submits that on 14.09.2023, after dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, a notice under Section 41A, CrPC was immediately issued by the IO to the applicant requiring his presence. Albeit, on 06.10.2023, proceedings under Section 82 were initiated, the applicant has not been declared as Proclaimed Offender [PO]. Placing reliance on Sarla Devi vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2015) SCC OnLine Del 9933), he submits that initiation of Section 82 proceeding does not have any bearing on the present application seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant is yet to be declared a PO. The learned senior counsel further submits that the present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as the applicant has clean antecedents, is not a flight risk and shall not tamper evidence or influence witnesses.

7. Notice was issued and the Status Report was called for.

8. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the present application of the applicant in light of the heinousness of the offences alleged and the sentence in case of conviction. She submits that initiation of Section 82, CrPC proceedings qua the applicant causes serious impediment to the present application. She further submits that the ld. Trial Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant noting the fact that he had threatened the prosecutrix in the Police Station. Relying on P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791, the learned APP submits that grant of anticipatory bail would lead to the applicant influencing the prosecutrix and tampering the evidence.

9. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant and the learned APP and perused the documents