Anticipatory bail may be granted if there are substantial doubts on the prosecution's claims and absence of flight risk, requiring adherence to specific conditions.

1. The applicant has preferred this bail application under S.438 of the CrPC apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 289/2014, registered in Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, for commission of offence punishable under S.354 - A r/w S.34 of the IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant alongwith co - accused Arunendra Kumar Sharma outraged the modesty of the complainant and sexually harassed her, and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Shri. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that present applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case as the place of incident is said to be the office of Additional Registrar (Judicial) which, usually on the working day is very much crowded by presence of lawyers and their clerks and as such the prosecution story appears to be improbable and fabricated. He would further submit that complainant is said to be sexually harassed by the applicant from the month of September, 2013, to 12.09.2014 including on 02.08.2014 by physically touching her body, but the First Information Report has been lodged only on 26.09.2014 after unexplained and inordinate delay which creates grave doubt on truthfulness of prosecution version. Shri. Tripathi would further submit that even after 02.08.2014, the complainant continuously and regularly worked in the office and did not make any complaint to any of the higher authorities which goes to show that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case, and also submit that he is holding the responsible post of Section Officer and the case of prosecution is not supported by any medical evidence and if he is granted anticipatory bail, he is not likely to flee from justice, and he has no criminal antecedents and therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, Shri. Lav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record to hold that applicant has sexually harassed the complainant and outraged her modesty and as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

5. Shri. Anand Verma, learned counsel appearing for the objector would submit that the applicant, by taking advantage of his position, sexually harassed the complainant continuously and on 02.08.2014 not only pressed the complainant's entire body, but also outraged her modesty, pursuant to which, written complaint has been made to the higher authorities vide Ex. C / 1 and complaint was also made to the Police Station Chakarbhata vide Ex. C / 2 on 26.09.2014 and family members of applicant have also forced the complainant to compromise the matter due to which written complaint is also submitted on 04.10.2014 to the Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara and in view of statement of complainant under S.164 of CrPC, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions and have also perused the case diary with utmost circumspection.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the case diary, the following facts would emerge:
(i) That, the applicant allegedly outraged the modesty / sexually harassed the complainant since September, 2013 to 12.09.2014 including that on 02.08.2014.
(ii)That, the complainant lodged the written report to the Station House Officer only on 26.09.2014.
(iii) That, the complainant made report