JUDGMENT : 1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail. 2. The applicant has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.670 of 2017 of Guruvayoor Temple Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC. 3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 10.6.2017, while the applicant and the de facto complainant were staying together in Room No.302 of Gokulam Vanamala Lodge, Thekkenada, Guruvayoor, the applicant committed rape on her and thus committed the offence. It is alleged that the de facto complainant was taken to Guruvayoor after assuring her that the applicant would marry her. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. I have also gone through the materials on record. 5. It appears that the Crime was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 2.8.2017 filed by the de facto complainant before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guruvayoor. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that the de facto complainant is a married lady with grown up kids and she was having close acquaintance with the accused for the past several years. While so, the relationship between the de facto complainant and her husband became strained. According to her, on a previous instance, i.e., on 23.10.2016, the applicant had trespassed into her house and had committed rape. She gave a complaint in the month of March, 2017 before the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur based on which Crime No.516 of 2017 was registered. Seeking pre-arrest bail, the applicant herein filed B.A.No.3228 of 2017. Along with the application, he had filed Annexure-2 affidavit dated 24.4.2017 sworn to by the de facto complainant and which is seen attested by a Notary Public. In Annexure-2 affidavit, she had stated that no act of rape was in fact committed by the applicant herein. On the strength of the affidavit, this Court had granted prearrest bail to the applicant on 19.7.2017. According to the de facto complainant, certain blank signed papers were obtained from her in the presence of her relatives, friends and counsel and this was manipulated and transformed into an affidavit. 6. On the strength of the affidavit, this Court had granted prearrest bail to the applicant on 19.7.2017. According to the de facto complainant, certain blank signed papers were obtained from her in the presence of her relatives, friends and counsel and this was manipulated and transformed into an affidavit. 6. It is further alleged that after the registration of the first crime and after filing the application for pre-arrest bail, they became close and decided to go to various temples for pilgrimage and decided to get married at Guruvayoor. Consequently, they went to Palani and resided in a lodge. Thereafter, they went to Guruvayoor and resided in Room No.302 of Sree Gokulam Vanamala lodge. It was while residing there, the applicant had allegedly raped the de facto complainant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would refer to the complaint as well as the affidavit and submit that the present allegation of rape is unbelievable. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant has ventured to file the second complaint on noticing that pre-arrest bail has been granted to the applicant by this Court. It is further pointed out that the applicant is arrested on 20.8.2017 and since then he is in custody. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that it was based on a promise of marriage that the de facto complainant had gone with the applicant to Guruvayoor. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is borne out from the prosecution records that on 10.6.2017, the de facto complainant was sexually assaulted by the applicant herein. However, it is submitted that 164 statement of the de facto complainant has already been recorded. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the materials on record. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, there is undue delay in setting the law in motion. Annexure-2 affidavit, if accepted, would clearly throw doubts on the case set up by the complainant. There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel that though the incident in the instant case is alleged to have taken place on 10.6.2017, the complaint alleging rape is lodged only on 6.8.2017, much after the passing of the order in the bail application. The veracity of the case of the complainant can only be adjudicated at a later stage. The veracity of the case of the complainant can only be adjudicated at a later stage. However, it does not appear that the continued incarceration of the applicant is required in the instant case. I am of the view that the application can be allowed subject to conditions. 10. In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. 2. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. 3. The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. 4. The applicant shall not commit any offence while he is on bail. 5. The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. 6. The applicant shall not contact or communicate with the victim or members of her family directly or indirectly. He shall not enter or reside in Palakkad District or in the house of the victim until the conclusion of the trial of this case. If for any extraordinary reason the applicant requires to enter the limits of the District, previous permission has to be obtained from the jurisdictional Court. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.