IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases involving serious allegations, the accused's conduct, including absconding and failure to join the investigation, can influence the court's decision on granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 485/2023, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. Briefly stated, the facts as alleged are that the complainant knew the accused/applicant since 2018. It is stated that the complainant was in relationship with him and he had established physical relations with her at his rented accommodation in Delhi on the false pretext of marriage. It is stated that the accused had even introduced her to his family members and had assured her of marriage and on the pretext of such false promise, he had continued to maintain physical relations with her. The complainant had got pregnant in the month of October, 2020. It is stated that when the complainant had asked accused to get married to her, he had told her that he needed more time for getting married and, therefore, she had undergone abortion. It is stated that the accused had kept promising the complainant that he will marry her, however, in May, 2023, the applicant had refused to marry the complainant. It is stated that when complainant had tried to speak to his family members, even they had misbehaved with her and the accused had left the rented accommodation for an undisclosed address and had stopped responding to her phone calls. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant argues that in the present case, FIR has been registered under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of a false complaint lodged by the complainant. It is argued that the applicant apprehends being arrested in the present FIR which was filed because of miscommunication and misunderstanding between the applicant and the complainant, who have been in a relationship for almost 5-6 years. It is also argued that the complainant had herself developed relationship with the applicant and therefore no case is made out against the applicant/accused. It is stated that after the registration of the FIR, the applicant was able to get in touch with the complainant and thereafter, they have sorted out all the differences between them and with the blessings of their elders, they have now got married to each other on 12.01.2024 as per Hindu rites and rituals.

4. Per contra, learned APP for the State argues that the allegations against the accused are serious in nature. It is also stated that the present case was registered on the complaint of Ms. 'X' wherein she had alleged that she knew the accused since 2018. It is also stated that the complainant was in relationship with him and he had established physical relations with her at his rented house in Delhi on the false pretext of marriage. He had continued to establish physical relations with her and she had got pregnant in the month of October, 2020. It is submitted that the conduct of the accused is noteworthy since after his bail applications were rejected thrice by the Courts, the marriage was solemnized with the sole aim of securing favourable order from this Court. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is prayed that anticipatory bail application of accused/applicant be rejected.

5. Today, the complainant appears in person and states that after the last anticipatory bail application of the accused was rejected by this Court on 12.12.2023, the parties had got married on 12.01.2024, i.e. 10 days back and therefore bail be granted to the accused. The complainant also states that throughout since and prior to filing of the FIR, there were some negotiations regarding marriage between the parties and therefore, now since they are married, bail be granted to the accused.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for applicant and learned APP for the State, and has gone through the case file.

7. In the present