ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Borio(J) P.S. Case No. 69 of 2022 instituted under Sections 376, 493 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. The notice has been validly served upon opposite party no.2 but no one turned up on her behalf.

4. The FIR was lodged on 22.03.2022 with allegation that petitioner has sexually exploited the informant on false pretext of marriage since 2014 and he had got her pregnancy aborted thrice. It is further alleged that petitioner made obscene videos of informant and started blackmailing her and at the end, he denied to marry with her. It is further alleged that petitioner has solemnized marriage with another girl.

5. 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 the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2014 but after lapse of 8 years, this case has been lodged in the year 2022 as such no reasonable ground has been offered by the informant for inordinate delay. It is further submitted that both parties are acquainted with each other and earlier the talk of marriage was entered into between the parties but due to refusal of petitioner’s father for solemnizing marriage, the informant lodged this case. No medical report has been brought on record by the informant showing the involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajsthan and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are allegations of serious offence against the petitioner. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. It appears that there was love-affair between the informant the petitioner since long span of time. Both stayed together and indulged in sexual activities on their own accord. The informant has never raised any objection against sexual indulgence. There is nothing on record showing abortion of victim lady. In the case of Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajsthan and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

3. “it is admitted case of the complainant that she was in a relationship with the appellant for a period of four years. It is admitted by Mr. Himanshu Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent NO.2/ complainant that when the relationship started, she was 21 years of age”.

4. “where the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC”.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and the ratio of order passed in the case of Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajsthan and Another (supra). I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail of petitioner.

9. It is made clear that observations in the present order are only for the purposes of deciding the pre-arrest bail application. The investigation shall proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the present order”.

10. In view of the above facts, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned