O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1291/2021 of Puthencruz Police Station, Ernakulam District alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000, 354, 354(B), 376(2)(n), 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w) (i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was in a relationship with the de facto complainant from the year 2016 and that on the false promise of marriage, the petitioner had engaged in sexual relationship with the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant was forced to support the petitioner financially and that a gold ornament belonging to her was also pledged by the petitioner to obtain some money as a loan. It is also alleged that the petitioner had taken certain intimate pictures of the de facto complainant on his mobile phone.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had never withdrawn from the promise of marriage and that despite the fact that the de facto complainant had suffered serious injuries in a motor accident, the petitioner is still willing to accept her as his wife. It is submitted that even going by the contents of the first information statement, it was the petitioner who had taken the de facto complainant to hospital several times after she sustained serious injuries in the motor accident. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed on the basis of some mis-understanding and that at any rate considering the nature of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.

4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through the first information statement as well as the medical records pertaining to the medical examination of the de facto complainant. He submits that going by the contents of the first information statement and the medical examination report, the petitioner was guilty of the offences alleged against him. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant also supported the arguments made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the petitioner had obtained huge sums of money from the de facto complainant. It is also submitted that the de facto complainant is now not willing to accept the offer made by the petitioner for marriage as there is no bonafides in such offer and it is made only to escape from the criminal case now registered against him.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations and considering the fact that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were admittedly in a relationship for large number of years, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions to ensure that the grant of anticipatory bail will not affect the investigation in Crime No.1291/2021 of Puthencruz Police Station in any manner. I am convinced that his custodial interrogation is not necessary.

7. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1291/2021 of Puthencruz Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.1291/2021 of Puthencruz Police Station at 9:00 a.m on 20.1.2022, 21.01.2022 and 22.01.2022. He shall co-operate with the investigation in every manner and shall surrender any mobile phone or other electronic equ