ORDER

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.164/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwari, District Jabalpur (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)N of IPC, 1860.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per version of FIR, the prosecutrix is aged about 21 years and the applicant is aged about 22 years. The applicant and the prosecutrix were in romantic relationship with each other since 2022 and there has been repeated instances of physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix since 20.12.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the FIR, the physical relationships were under false promise of marriage and in March 2024, ultimately the applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant as well as the prosecutrix were in emotional proximity to each other even as per prosecution version in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the Case of Dhuruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 327, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 4010 & Md. Naiyar vs. The State of Bihar 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886. It is prayed that the prosecution case is on weak footings and he must be given benefit of anticipatory bail. It is further argued that even though in the FIR it is alleged that the first instance of physical relationship was forceful but in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded before the Magistrate, it is submitted that even the first instance was with consent under pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that applicant and prosecutrix are neighbors and residing in the same neighborhood.

4. It is submitted that initially FIR was lodged by prosecutrix on 07.04.2024 at Crime No.156/2024 under Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the parents of applicant in which though ingredient of romantic relationship was there, but no ingredient of Section 376 was there. Thereafter after four days on 11.04.2024 the present FIR has been lodged at Crime No.164/2024 containing the ingredient of act under Section 376.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the and prayed for dismissal of this bail application.

6. Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application. It is also argued by learned counsel for the complainant that if the applicant is enlarged on bail then he would interfere with investigation and trial.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is allowed . It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number and the offences, they be released o n bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.

9. This order shall remain operative subject to compliance of following conditions by the applicant:-

a. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

b. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/ trial, as the case may be;

c. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be.

d. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

e. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

f. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

g. The applicant sh