IMPORTANT POINT
The court considered the nature and gravity of the offence alleged and the explanation for the delay in filing the FIR in deciding the application for pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, who, at the first instance has led this Court to Annexure-1 of this application which is a copy of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.3 herein. The contents of the FIR lodged before the Officer-In-Charge Jhalupara Beat House, Shillong dated 31.05.2022 would show that the complainant has accused the applicant herein of having raped her several times in the year 2013 and to keep her quiet had threatened her with dire consequences, even to kill her if she complaints about the matter to anyone. This act of rape continued even in the year 2014 after the marriage of respondent No.3/complainant and finally on 28.05.2022 at about 4:00PM, the applicant, called her up over the phone in the presence of her husband and indicated that she is to come and meet him at Barapathar as he was in the mood and wanted to play the game. The husband of respondent No.3/complainant overheard this conversation which finally led to the respondent No. 3/complainant to reveal the whole story to him. The husband then called up the wife of the applicant, who is the sister of the respondent No.3/complainant and told her everything, but the said sister refused to believe the respondent No.3/complainant.

2. It is also submitted that on the basis of the said FIR, the police had registered a case being Lumdiengjri PS Case No. 58(6)2022 under Section 376/506/509 IPC.

3. Mr. Gautam has further submitted that a plain reading of the FIR would suggest that it is false and fabricated made with an ulterior motive, since there was considerable delay of 9(nine) years in filing of the same which was not explained by the respondent No.3/complainant and has cast serious doubts about the allegations made therein.

4. On the antecedents of the applicant, Mr. Gautam has submitted that the applicant, is working as a medical representative in a private company with good reputation and having a wife with one school going child and there is no criminal record against him. Being accused of having committed a serious offence of rape, the reputation of the applicant, will be tarnished in society and his job would be in jeopardy.

5. It is further submitted that irrespective of the fact that the case against the applicant, may proceed in its usual course, since an apprehension of imminent arrest is made out, the applicant, has therefore approached this Court with this instant application under Section 438 Cr. PC for grant of pre-arrest bail on any conditions that this Court may deemed fit and proper to impose.

6. It is also submitted that this Court upon hearing the applicant vide order dated 08.07.2022, had allowed the applicant to go on interim bail and as such, it is prayed that the interim bail may be made absolute.

7. Mr. R.H. Alice, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/complainant has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are true and that the respondent No.3/complainant has been threatened by the applicant, not to disclose the fact that she was raped by him. However, it was only when she received the phone call on 28.05.2022, that she along with her husband have decided to report the matter to the police.

8. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that the relevant case diary as called for is now produced before this Court and on perusal of the same this Court may be pleased to pass necessary orders.

9. Due consideration has been given to the submission of the learned counsels for the parties. At the outset, it would not be proper if the relevant provision is not highlighted as regard the provision for grant of pre-arrest bail is concerned. Section 438 Cr. PC reads as follows: -

'438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. -(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the