ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Penk Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 1454 of 2022 instituted under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of I.T. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. As per FIR, the allegation is that prior to informant’s marriage, she was in love affair with petitioner but after denial of marriage by the petitioner, the informant solemnized marriage with another man. It is further alleged that prior to marriage, petitioner has established sexual relationship with the informant and also recorded obscene photographs and video clips of the informant. The petitioner sent obscene photographs and video graphs to her and her husband. Upon protest, petitioner threatened the informant and her family members to ruin her life and he will keep making her indecent photos and videos viral on social media.

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 nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and he has never made her indecent photos and videos viral on social media. This false case been instituted with a view to harass and tarnish his image in the society. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing sexual intercourse with the informant and after marriage of informant, the petitioner deliberately intruded into her marital life and send indecent photos and videos to her and her husband with intention to ruin her matrimonial life. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. It appears that inspite of protection given by this Court from arrest to the petitioner, he has not co-operated with the investigation of the case in compliance of the notice under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C served upon him. It further appears that the pen-drives containing indecent photographs and videos have been seized in this case by police and petitioner is threatening to informant to withdraw the case for which an application has been filed before the concerned lower court.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, gravity of offence and severity of punishment and materials available on record against the petitioner showing his direct involvement in this case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.