The court determined that continued consensual relations between parties undermined allegations of coercion, allowing bail based on absence of credible evidence of force.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No.413/2021, PS Tigri under Sections 376 /328/506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 submitting to the effect that the allegations levelled against the applicant are wholly false and that the relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix, if any, were wholly consensual, that the prosecutrix indulged in sexual relations with the applicant despite being a married woman and that it was on the insistence of the prosecutrix that she became pregnant with the applicant.

2. The applicant has further submitted that after the pregnancy, the prosecutrix started making demands of money from the applicant to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs and also stated that if the applicant did not pay the amount to her, she would implicate him in a false case and get him removed from his Government job.

3. Notice of the application was issued to the State with directions to the State to submit the copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the prosecutrix.

4. The prosecutrix too joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing on 02.12.2021 and made her submissions.

5. As per the status report submitted by the State dated 21.11.2021 under the signatures of Inspector Rajnish Kumar, SHO, PS Tigri, a complaint was received at PS Tigri from the complainant in relation to a sexual assault with a lady named `D', wife of `X' and in her complaint she alleged that the applicant working in PNB as a Clerk, had sexually assaulted her and that she was three (3) months in the family way. As per the prosecution version, the complainant had stated through her complaint that in 2018 she went to PNB Khanpur due to some account related problems, where the complainant met the applicant who provided his mobile number for future reference and thereafter they frequently called each other and in 2018, the applicant/accused came to the complainant's house for collection of some documents and offered some sweets to the complainant whereafter the complainant became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness she found herself nude and found the applicant/accused lying with her on the bed and watching a video on his mobile phone and threatened the complainant that if she told anything to anyone he would kill her husband.

6. As per the status report put forth, in March 2021, according to the complainant, she and the applicant left their homes and started living together at Mayur Vihar in a rented accommodation and the applicant/accused had stated that he would take a divorce and would marry her soon but now since the complainant had become pregnant, the applicant/accused was not responding to her calls and was asking her to abort her three (3) months pregnancy.

7. As per the said status report, during the course of the investigation on 16/03/2021, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted and during the medical examination, no exhibits were seized as the incident was very old and that the UPT test of the prosecutrix was conducted which indicated that she was three months in the family way. The statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the prosecutrix was also recorded as submitted by the State.

8. It is further submitted through the status report dated 21.11.2021 that during the course of the investigation conducted at PNB, Khanpur, New Delhi, it was found that account no. 1514000100989327 belonging to the complainant `D' was opened on 12/09/2012 and that, the KYC of the complainant's account was done at the time of opening of the same.

9. Through the said status report dated 21.11.2021, the State has further stated to the effect that the hotel records regarding the stay of the complainant and the applicant/accused were collected from Hotel Vinayak Inn, Pahad Ganj and according to the Hotel records, in December 2018, the complainant and the applicant/accused went to the hotel for one da