DIPAK JANARDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I -117 of 2015 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 328 of the IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as under:­ The prosecutrix has lodged the FIR on 14.6.2015 with Vejalpur Police Station against the applicant for the offecnes punishable under Sections 376 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Heard Mr.N.D.Buch, learned counsel for the applicant. He has contended that there is delay of 14 months in registration of the FIR. From the record it transpires that extramarital relationship between the applicant and the complainant remained intact at least till April, 2014. He has drawn attention of the Court to the conduct of the complainant - victim and contended that in our society a married woman like complainant who is not keeping matrimonial relation with the husband and ignoring to keep such relation with him by saying that she dislikes him as a legally wedded wife, who is keeping illicit relations with other person is not tolerable in the society. He has contended that this shows moral character of the present complainant. He has further drawn attention of the Court to the documents produced on record and contended that this is a clear case of blackmailing or approach of the person who is abnormal or even in a disabled mental condition. He has contended that only when complainant's husband learnt about her relations, the FIR came to be lodged against the present applicant. He has contended that statement of complainant was recorded on 17.2.2015, wherein she has affirmed that she had voluntarily developed physical relations with the applicant, more particularly when she had no physical relations with her husband since February, 2007. Even the husband of the complainant has given his statement on 17.3.2015 disclosing the disturbed matrimonial relations and even statement of the applicant was also recorded on 1.3.2015. These statements of the complainant and her husband go to show that there were no cordial relations between the complainant and her husband and had worsened after February, 2007. He has contended that by way of an additional application dated 10.3.2015 the complainant had leveled similar allegation against the applicant. However, on 20.3.2015 the complainant herself had requested the concerned Investigating Officer to permit her to withdraw her previous complaint dated 4.2.2015. He has contended that on 1.6.2015 the applicant had requested the Assistant Commissioner of Police in writing to do the needful since there was constant harassment and blackmailing from the complainant. In view of the above facts, he has prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.