The main legal point established is that the FIR must establish a proximate cause for its filing and the allegations must align with the facts presented by the parties.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Vishal Anandjiwala appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing with learned Advocates Mr.Aditya Pandya and Mr.Nishit Acharya for the First Informant.

2. By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.11191014220237 of 2022 registered with Ellisbrdige Police Station, District Ahmedabad (City) on 12.8.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(b), 376(2)(n), 307, 323, 504, 506, and 507 of IPC.

3. Learned Advocate Mr.Anadjiwala for the applicant would submit that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. Learned Advocate would submit that the present applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned Advocate Mr.Anandjiwala would, therefore, request that in view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned Advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. Learned Advocate would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

4. This application has been vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.

5. This application has been vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch on behalf of the First Informant, who would submit that the applicant has been continuously harassing the First Informant by going to her residence and calling her repeatedly to the extent of calling her multiple times everyday and whereas upon calls not being received, even abusive messages have been sent by the present applicant. Learned Advocate Mr.Buch would, therefore, submit that considering the serious nature of the offence, the present applicant may not be granted bail by this Court.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the investigation papers, following aspects are taken into consideration by this Court:

1. It appears that the FIR has been lodged by the First Informant on 12.8.2022 inter alia alleging commission of offence between 5.11.2017 to 6.7.2020. The allegation being that the present applicant had allured the first informant to enter into a relationship with the present applicant, more particularly by giving false promise of marriage;

2. It appears that even from the FIR it is apparent that the marital status of the present applicant was known to the First Informant somewhere after the applicant and First Informant had met in the year 2017. It also appears that even after coming to know about the marital status of the present applicant, the present applicant and First Informant had continued their relationship.

3. It appears that the present applicant had submitted an application/complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 2.11.2020 inter alia with the self-same allegations and whereas it appears that at the relevant point of time, the ACP, Mahila Cell, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad City had been entrusted with the inquiry upon the application/complaint and whereas it appears that in spite of the repeated calls by the Officer concerned, the present First Informant had not responded and thus, the said application/complaint f