ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Ranchi Case No. 30 of 2022 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 376(2)(n), 417 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

Factual Matrix

3. The FIR was lodged by prosecutrix on 21.12.2022 at Mahila Police Station at Ranchi with allegation that prosecutrix was studying and residing at Ranchi since in the year 2011. It is further alleged that in course of study, in the year 2013 she met with present petitioner which turned into friendship and both started frequently visiting each other at their home. Meanwhile, on 14.01.2014 present petitioner pressurized the prosecutrix for having physical relationship which she refused then he assured that both are in love and he also wants to solemnize marriage with her then there should be hurdle in establishing sexual intercourse which continued since long. But in the year 2021 when the prosecutrix proposed and putting pressure on him for marriage then petitioner visited to her family members in the month of March, 2021 and negotiated about solemnizing marriage and fixed date of marriage in the month of February, 2022 and started living with prosecutrix at Government residential Quarter No. B/186 Sail Satellite Colony, Near Delhi Public School, Ranchi and continuously indulged in sex. It is further alleged that ultimately on 20.02.2022, the petitioner called the prosecutrix at his quarter and forcibly established physical relationship and when she again persisted for marriage, she was dashed and ousted from the house then, she disclosed the incident to her parents. Thereafter, the family members of the prosecutrix went to the hose of petitioner for negotiation of marriage between the petitioner and prosecutrix but petitioner flatly refused to marry with her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that even if the version of the FIR is taken to be true, no offence under section 376(2)(n) of IPC is made out against the petitioner. As much as, on the date of first alleged occurrence, prosecutrix was more than 16 years old and the FIR was lodged after lapse of 8 years from the alleged occurrence without offering any reasonable explanation. No specific date, time and place in respect of indulgence in sexual intercourse has been stated by prosecutrix. Petitioner is dragged in this case because he got government job in SAIL and getting handsome salary and the prosecutrix at any cost wants to solemnize marriage with petitioner. It is further submitted hat as per medical report of the prosecutrix conducted on 22.12.2022, no sign of rape was found on her body and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, hence, no useful purpose will be solved to detain the petitioner in custody. Petitioner is an employee of government undertaking having no criminal antecedents. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall abide all terms and conditions imposed upon him and also shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has committed rape with the prosecutrix on assurance of solemnizing marriage with her and continuously sexually exploited and abused since 10 years and when the petitioner got government job, he left the prosecutrix on her own fate. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the back