ORDER

1. Heard the counsel for the parties and case diary perused.

2. This is first application under section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends her arrest in connection in Crime No. 851/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, DistrictVidisha for the offence punishable under sections 376(2) (n), 376 (2)( i), 354D, 120B of IPC, sections 3/4, 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), sections 67, 67A and 67B of Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. Applicant is a lady aged about 38 years and is a Corporator in Municipal Corporation, Vidisha. She is apprehending her arrest because of registration of case referred above.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant submits that case is of false implication. The police authorities are taking reliance over the statement of co-accused Dr. Piyush Saxena, who happens to be applicant's husband to fasten liability over the applicant ignoring the legal position that statement of her husband is exculpatory in nature; whereas, applicant is not involved in offence. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI), AIR 1998 SC 201 in this regard.. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Pancho v. State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 523 to submit that confession of co-accused does not constitute substantial evidence. It is further submitted that the instant application under section 438 of CrPC has been preferred before the filing of charge-sheet and even otherwise,the application for anticipatory bail will lie even if the charge-sheet has been filed by placing reliance over judgment reported in the case of Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC 684. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and anr., (2016) 1 SCC 152 and submits that applicant is participating in investigation and no chance of her absconsion exist.

5. It is the submission of the applicant that from the contents of FIR itself, no allegations of rape under section 376 of IPC and outraging the modesty of woman under section 354 of IPC exists. Similarly, no incriminating content finds place in FIR and in statement of prosecutrix to fasten liability of provisions of POCSO Act. Only allegation against the present applicant is that her SIM has been used for posting some obscene photographs of prosecutrix while inserting the SIM in a mobile instrument, which she denies categorically.

6. It is the submission of applicant that Rs. 10 lacs have been lent by the husband of applicant to the family members of prosecutrix and when asked to repay, the result is of registration of offence. He undertakes on behalf of applicant that she would cooperate in the investigation and would make herself available as and when required by the trial Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and raised the question regarding maintainability of application once the charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that applicant did not cooperate in the investigation. He prayed for dismissal of the application while relying upon the decision of apex Court in the matter of D.K.Ganesh Babu v. P.T.Manokaran and Ors. [AIR 2007 SC 1450], Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, [AIR 2005 SC 1057], Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr., [(2012) 4 SCC 379] and Jarasindhu Choubey v. Amresh Chaubey alias Amresh Kumar Choubey and anr. [(2012) 12 SCC 455].

8. Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the bail applicant and submits that ID of the complainant has been used and to post and paste obscene photographs. Forged documents have been created by the applicant and her husband regarding money transaction to counter the allegations. Since, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

9. Heard the counsel for the pa