The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of live-in-relationships does not confer any right on either partner to force themselves upon the other, and that such relationships have their own limitations.

ORDER

1. They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

2. This is applicant's first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.203/2022 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 328, 313, 506 and 34 of IPC.

3. The allegations against the applicant are that on 15.02.2022 an FIR was lodged against him by the complainant/prosecutrix at Crime No.203 of 2022 alleging that she was friends with the present applicant and came to know him in the year 2016 and used to meet him for the purpose of studies only. However, at one point of time he called her to his room and offered her cold drink and after drinking of which she fell unconscious and thereafter he committed rape on her. When she came into her senses she saw that her clothes were removed by the applicant and when she asked him about the same, he told her that he has had sexual intercourse with her and had also made a video of the same and if she informs to any other person, he would viral the same. Being afraid, the prosecutrix put on her clothes and went to her house. However, subsequently the applicant kept on committing rape on her on the threat that he would viral her video with him. In the year 2017 when her stomach was having some problem, she went to a Life Line Hospital, Indore where she was treated and it was found that she is pregnant. When the applicant came to know about her pregnancy, he again threatened her and forced her to terminate the pregnancy and got it terminated and thereafter he again started having physical relationship with her. When the prosecutrix protested against the same and threatened him that she would inform this to her parents, he called his brother from Jabalpur, who also showed her a knife and told her to do whatever his brother asks her to do. Thus, she kept on following the dictates of the present applicant and again got pregnant. However, this time she went to one Dr. Aparna Jain, who also gave her some medicines and thus her pregnancy was again aborted. Thereafter the applicant stopped meeting her and subsequently her father engaged her to a boy from Indore on 14.01.2022, but someone sent the applicant the aforesaid information and thereafter from various mobile phones the applicant has started harassing her parents, her uncle and her fiance and his family by sending messages, photographs and also threatened them that if the prosecutrix marry some other person, he would viral her videos and photographs.

4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case on account of the prosecutrix's leaving him for some other boy, he has also considered to commit suicide and has also made a video clip of the same as the family of the prosecutrix and her fiance's family all are bent upon to harass him by lodging false report against him. It is further submitted that prior to the aforesaid FIR, the prosecutrix had also lodged another FIR on 05.02.2022 itself at Crime No.49 of 2022 under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC against the present applicant that he is threatening her family and her-in-laws. Thus, it is submitted that had it been a case of rape, there was no reason for the prosecutrix not to mention the aforesaid offence in the earlier aforesaid FIR itself.

5. Counsel has submitted that the prosecutrix had resident with the applicant in live-in-relationship for around 4-5 years and the abortions were carried out with the consent of both the parties concerned as husband and wife and thus, to say that the prosecutrix was threatened by the applicant is again blatantly a false statement.

6. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the scores of photographs, audio clips and video clips, which were recorded by and between of the applicant and the prosecutrix. Counsel has also submitted that both of them were having an affair and were live