JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been implicated falsely. A totally false case has been lodged against the present petitioner. The incident is said to be of 29.2.2012 but the matter has not been reported to any authority and even the prosecutrix has not informed about the incident to his husband or other family members. Even after the incident, the prosecutrix was having usual relations with the present petitioner and the daughter of the prosecutrix has stated that two three days before 22.3.2012, her mother, the prosecutrix and Nandy uncle-the present petitioner and their spouses have went to see sand-dunes. The husband of the prosecutrix has came to know about the intimate relations of the present petitioner with the prosecutrix by tapping phone-calls which is also suggestive that the present petitioner and the prosecutrix were having intimate relations prior to the alleged incident. On the date of incident, it has been stated that the present petitioner, his wife and the prosecutrix drank together and the prosecutrix was in a high drunkard stage but the enquiry report of Army suggests that on the same night, 97 SMS messages have been exchanged between the prosecutrix and the present petitioner which does not support the statement of the prosecutrix that she was intoxicated on the night of the occurrence. On 22.3.2012 when the prosecutrix and her husband were going out station, the keys of the house and car were also handed over to the wife of the present petitioner and he has also instructed that car should be collected by the present petitioner which shows the harmonious relations between the parties even after the alleged incident. The call details between the prosecutrix and the present petitioner is also suggestive of the closeness of the two. Even after the alleged date of incident, the various phone calls have been exchanged between the two. The husband of the prosecutrix returned back from the tour on 6.3.2012. In spite of this fact, nothing has been narrated to him regarding the incident. First time on 21.4.2012, a verbal information has been given to AOC in which no allegation of rape on specific date has been alleged. The husband of the prosecutrix returned back from the tour on 6.3.2012. In spite of this fact, nothing has been narrated to him regarding the incident. First time on 21.4.2012, a verbal information has been given to AOC in which no allegation of rape on specific date has been alleged. Only it has been stated that the present petitioner is having physical relation with his wife. Thereafter on 11.6.2012 a written complaint has been filed by the husband of the prosecutrix. Nothing has been narrated in that report regarding incident of rape. It has been stated that his wife has been molested and the present petitioner tried to rape her. After detail enquiry, it has been concluded by the authorities that there is no evidence to support the allegation of rape. The husband of the prosecutrix has also stated to witness that his wife is having extra marital affairs with another officer and he also suggested that the present petitioner should do community service or pay money for charity which also suggests that no offence has been committed by the present petitioner. Broadly, the contention of the present petitioner is that he and the prosecutrix were having intimate relations which too were in the knowledge of their spouses. He never raped the prosecutrix and falsely a report has been made. The alleged offence is said to have been committed on 29.2.2012 and no fruitful purpose would be served by arresting him and looking to the conclusions of the court-martial the case is base-less, false and hence the present petitioner should be released on anticipatory bail. 3. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant is that the present petitioner has misused the trust of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that she used to treat the present petitioner as elder brother but the present petitioner by misusing his position, has raped her. He was having faith in the authorities, hence he had not lodged the criminal report initially and enquiry has not been made properly. After the enquiry the present petitioner has not been exonerated fully but he has been found guilty of indecent advantages towards the prosecutrix and physical intimacy with her. 4. He was having faith in the authorities, hence he had not lodged the criminal report initially and enquiry has not been made properly. After the enquiry the present petitioner has not been exonerated fully but he has been found guilty of indecent advantages towards the prosecutrix and physical intimacy with her. 4. Further more, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that in FIR, in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., specific allegation have been made against the present petitioner. This is not a fit case to release the present petitioner on anticipatory bail, hence the present petitioner should not be released on bail. 5. The contention of the complainant is that the present petitioner is not joining the investigation and he is absconding from the service also for which the contention of the present petitioner is that he joined the duties at Bikaner and also appeared before the Investigating Officer on 16.11.2012. 6. Without going into the merit of the case and after going through the proceeding before the army authorities and various contentions of the rival parties and looking at the fact that the incident is of 29.2.2012 but the matter has not been reported immediately to any body, even thereafter the prosecutrix has maintained the usual relations with the present petitioner, even they used to talked on phone and exchanged messages, even the husband of the prosecutrix has not made known about the incident and two teenagers daughters, one of the present petitioner and one of the prosecutrix were also sleeping in the room adjacent to the room when the alleged incident has been taken place but no hue and cry has been raised by the present petitioner on the pretext that she was in drunken stage, whereas she has sent messages to the present petitioner numerous times on the same night and in the morning at about 6 a.m. she talked with her husband and again at about 7 a.m. she talked with the present petitioner, hence it is a fit case to release the present petitioner on anticipatory bail. 7. 7. Accordingly,the bail application of petitioner is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Wing Commander Arunaksha Nandy s/o Late A.P. Nandy in connection with CR No. 232/2012 of Police Station Gangashahar District Bikaner, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:- 1. He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; 2. He shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 any Police Officer; He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial court. Bail application allowed. *******