JUDGMENT 1. - This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner Lekhraj apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 123/2015, Police Station Reodar, District Sirohi for the offences under Sections 354 A, 384 and 376 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record and the case diary. 3. Facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. P. aged 22 years submitted a written report at P. S. Reodar on 17.9.2015 with the allegations that she was posted at Tehsil Office, Reodar since 8.10.2014 as a Leave Reserve Patwari. She was residing with her husband and her mother in a rented premises in the Reodar town. The petitioner Lekhraj is also posted as a L.D.C. in Tehsil Office, Reodar. Since she was newly inducted in service, Lekhraj developed friendly relations with her under the pretext of teaching her computer work. Lekhraj used to take liberties with her every day in the office and elsewhere. About 8 months ago, Lekhraj came to her house. Her husband opposed his visit and a quarrel ensued between the two. Her husband was working at the Toll Tax Outpost. 3-4 months ago, Lekhraj again came to her house when her husband had gone for work at Toll Tax and her mother had gone to the village. He allegedly subjected the prosecutrix to forcible intercourse against her desire on that day. After that, Lekhraj used to threaten her that he had recorded an indecent video clip of hers and if she tried to discontinue the relationship, the clip would be publicized and she would be defamed. Lekhraj continued her sexual exploitation under this pressure. She tried to resist Lekhraj on several occasions but he threatened her with dire consequences. On 14.9.2015, Lekhraj came to the office and told her that she had to accompany him for Government work. At about 6-7 RM., he took her to a river bed near Village Basan and again subjected her to intercourse against her desire. He again threatened her with dire consequences. She alleged that she did not reveal these events to anyone because she was afraid of her reputation as Lekhraj had threatened her to make viral her indecent video clipping. At about 6-7 RM., he took her to a river bed near Village Basan and again subjected her to intercourse against her desire. He again threatened her with dire consequences. She alleged that she did not reveal these events to anyone because she was afraid of her reputation as Lekhraj had threatened her to make viral her indecent video clipping. Ultimately, she somehow gathered courage and told of the happenings to her mother and brother on 15.9.2015. Thereafter, the F.I.R. came to be registered. 4. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein more or less the allegations set out in the FIR were repeated. In the concluding portion of the statement, the prosecutrix alleged that Lekhraj gave her a false promise of teaching her computer and under this pretext, outraged her modesty and subjected her to rape. 5. Apprehending arrest in the above FIR, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Sirohi by way of an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by order dated 19.10.2015 upon which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this application for pre- arrest bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, copies of numerous text messages exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and submits that on going through the text messages, it is clear that the prosecutrix, despite being a married lady, was carrying on an illicit liaison thickly with the present petitioner. He submits that the prosecutrix is a major woman and thus, it is clearly a case of consensual sexual relations between two major persons and as such, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. They submitted that it is a case wherein the petitioner, taking advantage of his official position, has sexually exploited the prosecutrix and as such, he does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute the fact regarding the text messages exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix as placed on record of the bail application. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on record. 9. However, learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute the fact regarding the text messages exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix as placed on record of the bail application. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on record. 9. The text messages which are filed on record of the bail application are clearly indicative of long standing close and intimate relations between the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant was sharing the minutest details with the petitioner viz. taking bath, having food etc. She used to send text messages and invite the petitioner to her house at odd hours. In one text message dated 20.5.2015, she requested the accused for money to buy vegetables. The petitioner has been addressed with intimate expressions like, Janu, Janeman, Darling, I Love You, etc. in these text messages. Two of the messages exchanged between the petitioner and the complainant on 2.6.2015 are reproduced herein below by way of illustration:-Petitioner:- "Kyu kal raat wale pyar se khush nahi ho. Ok janu.. Jao aur khana kha ke jaldi wapas aana.. I love you so much.. 12:50 PM, 2 Jun 2015Complainant:- Me khus hu bs nind aa rhi h or koi problem nhi h janu me aap ke pyar me kho chuki hu janu 12:54 PM, 2 Jun 2015 10. In this background, the argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel that the relations established between the petitioner and the prosecutrix were totally consensual and voluntary, does carry force. 11. As an upshot of the above discussion and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr. PC. 12. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Lekhraj in connection with the F.I.R. No. 123/2015, Police Station Reodar, District Sirohi, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. PC. 12. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Lekhraj in connection with the F.I.R. No. 123/2015, Police Station Reodar, District Sirohi, the petitioner 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/S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner 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 any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. 13. It is further directed that the Investigating Officer whilst proceeding further with the investigation shall make thorough enquiry into the text messages exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and shall also file the same along with the result of investigation in the concerned Court so as to ensure fair trial.Bail Granted. *******