IMPORTANT POINT
The decision emphasizes the importance of considering overall facts and circumstances, including the need for custodial interrogation, in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') in connection with FIR bearing number 411/2022 dated 20.08.2022 registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi under Sections 376/377/328/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant who had alleged that the present applicant Vikram Kathuria had established sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant herself who had obtained a divorce from the Karkardooma Family Court, Delhi in 2016, had an intention to remarry and lead a new life. It was stated that she was introduced to Vikram Kathuria through a mutual friend named Charu, and upon meeting, Vikram had represented himself as a divorced man from a reputable family. The complainant had requested to see Vikram's divorce papers, which he first had claimed to have lost but had later shown. The complainant had explicitly told Vikram that her interest was in marrying him and she wished to refrain from engaging in sexual activity before marriage. Thereafter, on 10.04.2022, Vikram had picked complainant from her home and had allegedly offered her a drink laced with intoxicating substances, and had engaged in sexual activity against her will. When the complainant reported the incident to Rajendra Kathuria, Vikram's father, he promised to get her married to his son, but accused Vikram had subsequently threatened the complainant, warning her not to report the incident, and also took possession of her income tax return and chequebook. Thereafter, complainant had asked the accused again to marry her in a socially acceptable manner, after which, he had pressurised her to have a private marriage performed at Arya Samaj Mandir, which felt a bit unusual and strange to the complainant. The marriage between the complainant and accused Vikram eventually took place at Arya Samaj Mandir in Connaught Place, New Delhi. The complainant had objected to the absence of Vikram's parents in the ceremony, to which he had responded that he wished to surprise them. It was also alleged by the complainant that accused had obtained her signatures on a blank paper by telling her that it was necessary for drafting an affidavit. After the marriage, Vikram had pressured the complainant to engage in sexual activity on 09.05.2022, at Leela Hotel, Karkardooma, Delhi. It was alleged that Vikram did not take complainant to his home as his wife but made various promises and excuses. Later, Vikram had revealed that his divorce proceedings had not been finalized, and he had a son from his previous marriage. The complainant had further discovered discrepancies in the marriage certificate, where Vikram had falsely declared himself as "unmarried." It was also alleged that on one of the occassions, Vikram had shown a flat at Anand Vihar, Delhi, to the complainant and had promised her that he wishes to keep his family and complainant at the said flat. Thereafter, accused had got a rent agreement drafted without including his name, but instead, the name of complainant's father, and had sent the list for furnishing the flat to the complainant and her sisters. It has also been alleged that when complainant had shared this with a mutual friend Charu Baliyan, she had told her that Vikram had a history of exploiting and deceiving women. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for applicant argues that this is a case of consensual relationship where the applicant had already disclosed the factum of his marriage and he being blessed with a child, prior to the establishment of commencement of the relationship of the accused and the complainant. It is also argued that the petitioner had at no point of time concealed any fact from the compla