The court emphasized that serious allegations of sexual offenses warrant thorough investigation, and anticipatory bail is denied when the gravity of the accusations and potential for justice obstruction are evident.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.141/2022 under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Tughlak Road.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the prosecutrix was in love affair with the petitioner and even their engagement was done. Negotiations for marriage were taking place but due to some reasons the marriage could not neutralize. Thereafter, the prosecutrix filed the present false and frivolous complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case where the anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State has opposed the bail application vehemently. It has been submitted that in fact the accused/pettioner is related to the prosecutrix and they had developed some intimacy in the year 2018. However when the talks for marriage started taking place, a demand for Rs.2 lakhs was raised by the petitioner/accused and his family members.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State further submits that in the month of March 2021 during the engagement also a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was allegedly spent by the complainant family and the marriage was fixed for November 2021. However, the marriage did not take place as the family of the accused demanded more money. It has further been submitted that the accused used to record their intimate scenes on his and complainant's mobile phones.

6. The Investigating Officer states that it has also been revealed in the investigation that the accused forced the complainant and made physical relations with her and made video recordings of the same. Complaint came to know about such recordings later on.

7. The case of the prosecution is that by showing some video recordings, the accused used to force the prosecutrix for physical relationship.

8. The IO states that it has also been revealed during the investigation that the complainant became pregnant and when it was told to the accused, he forcibly gave some medicine to abort pregnancy.

9. Perusal of the record indicates that the allegations made against the petitioner/accused are very serious in nature and requires in-depth investigation. It is also a matter of record that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated against the accused. The prerogative for grant of anticipatory is very well settled in the law. The Court has to consider inter alia the following facts before granting anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) Where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested.

10. The Court has also to take into account whether the accused will, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fats to the court or to any police officer.

11. I consider that in the present facts and circumstances, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

12. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application stand dismissed.