Accused-applicant Gopal s/o Shivdayal apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 27/2000 registered at Police Station Khilchipur, District Rajgarh (Biaora) for the alleged charges punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 342 IPC. The prosecution story is that on 9.2.2000 complainant Mamtabai, aged about 20 years and a widow lady, lodged a complaint against the present applicant, who is also aged about 20 years and a student of Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Khilchipur, that on 1.1.2000 one Khemchand came to the house of the prosecutrix and showing the knife took her to his own house where this present applicant Gopal was also present alongwith one other person and all the three persons committed rape with complainant in the house of Khemchand. The submission of Shri Chauhan is that the report of the incident was lodged after five weeks, there is no medical report; the applicant is a student and has been falsely implicated in the case. If he is taken into custody, his career would be ruined. His further submission is that the police is treating him as absconder, whereas he had appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination from 7.3.2000 to 26.3.2000, as per the certificate of the Principal of the Government School. He is being falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. In case where report is belatedly lodged, case for anticipatory bail can be considered under the present circumstances. Accordingly this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the case as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1980 SC 1632 ) as under :- "We are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided therefor is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material before it justifying such refusal." "Since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the Court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of S.438, Cr.P.C. especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the Legislature in the terms of that section. S.438, CR.P.C. is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An over-generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in S. 438, CR.P.C. can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in S. 438, Cr.P.C. must be saved, not jettisoned. "A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the Court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail." Considering the submissions, looking to the material collected in the case-diary as well as looking to the fact that the FIR was lodged so belatedly, this application is allowed. It is directed, therefore, that in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the I.O. concerned on the following conditions :- (i) that the applicant shall always be available for the purposes of interrogation and investigation to the I.O. as and when required in the working hours : (ii) that the applicant during this period shall not try to threaten, contact or induce any of the prosecution witnesses and shall fully co-operate in the investigation; (iii) that the applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on the date of filing of challan and shall seek regular bail before the trial Court. This bail is being allowed only during the pendency of the investigation; and (iv) that the applicant shall not abscond and shall not leave the boundaries of District Rajgarh (Biaora) without prior permission of I.O. This order shall not affect the merits of the case at the time of trial.