Anticipatory bail is not granted when specific allegations exist against the accused, necessitating custodial interrogation.

ORDER :

(N. Tukaramji, J.)

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No. 107 of 2024 on the file of the PS; Mohammadabad, Mahabubnagar District, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Mobile Court at Mohammadabad.

3. Heard Sri G. Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Khaja A. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner under the promise of marriage sexually exploited the de facto complainant, thereafter, neglected her and threatened with dire consequences and finally declined to marry her and married another woman. Thus, the petitioner committed offences under Sections 376, 417, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The overt act attributed is a created one and no offence under the SCs/STs Act could be made out even the version of prosecution is accepted as it is. Further, the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed but as the petitioner is apprehending arrest, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and he is at large since the date of offence and his custodial interrogation is required.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

8. As per the record, the allegation is specific against the petitioner that he had sexually exploited the de facto complainant under deceptive promise of marriage. Having regard to the averments in the police report and the prima facie case against the petitioner, this Court finds that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the absence of any reason as to why the petitioner shall not surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and then have his regular bail application before the Court concerned, this Court is of the view that issuance of directions in these lines would meet the ends of justice.

9. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.07.2024 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of any information, if any. After enquiries, the petitioner shall be produced before the concerned Court having jurisdiction on the same day. Upon such presentation and on filing of petition for regular bail, the Court shall consider and dispose of the application, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.

10. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.