Judgment : 1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Cr.No.80/14 registered by Jnanabharathi Police, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore has been rejected vide order dated 22-09-2014. Hence, petitioner is before this Court 3. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that prima-facie case is forthcoming about the alleged offence of rape and complainant being abused with regard to her caste. Hence, he requested the Court to dismiss the bail application. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 5. Perused the records and decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. As could be seen from the records, petitioner had approached this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, when the investigation was still in progress. This Court had dismissed the bail application in Crl.P.No.3667/2014 on 08-07-2014 without expressing any opinion on the material collected by the police. Now the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant -Kum.Prathibha is a lady belonging to Schedule Caste. It is further stated that she had come in contact with this petitioner and petitioner wanted to marry, as a result of which, intimacy had developed between them. Petitioner had proposed to marry her and had even suppressed the material fact of his earlier marriage. As a result of the same, both of them had gone to Madikere on 18-10-2013 and stayed in a resort in Room No.204 and spent time there. On 26-12-2013, again both of them went to Goa and stayed at Farenheight Hotel and Resort. The petitioner had assured to marry her and on the basis of this promise, he had sexual intercourse with her several times. 8. It is her case that the petitioner had held out threats to her with dire consequences to her life, if she were to disclose this fact to anybody. The complainant demanded him to marry her. At that time, he stated to have denied her request, on the ground that she belonged to Schedule Caste and he belonged to upper community. It is her case that the petitioner had held out threats to her with dire consequences to her life, if she were to disclose this fact to anybody. The complainant demanded him to marry her. At that time, he stated to have denied her request, on the ground that she belonged to Schedule Caste and he belonged to upper community. On the basis of the said allegation, the complainant registered the case on 14-02-2014 to the respondent - police. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the document to show that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner and when the petitioner asked to repay the amount, she, along with her mother and her uncle came to the house of the petitioner and quarreled with him and the complainant had threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. In this regard, a report was given to the police on 05-02-2014 seeking protection from the complainant and her family members and also to get his money back from her. On the basis of the said report, case came to be registered against the complainant. There appears to be some strong force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was financial transaction between the complainant and the petitioner. 10. Whether a sexual intercourse with consent would come within the purview of rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC has been well dealt by the Apex Court in the case of 'UDAY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA' reported in AIR 2003(4) SCC 46 . Anyhow, the petitioner is ready to obey any condition that may be imposed on him. Entire investigation is already over and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, the apprehension of the learned HCGP could be suitably met out by imposing proper conditions. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.80/2014 by Jnanabharathi police, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer. (ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional police station within ten days from today and in such an event, the I.O. may orally interrogate him, if it is absolutely required. (ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional police station within ten days from today and in such an event, the I.O. may orally interrogate him, if it is absolutely required. Soon after conducting interrogation, he shall release the petitioner on bail. (iii) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iv) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.