ORDER : 1. Petitioner is alleged of offences punishable under Section 354(A), 420, 504, 506 of IPC. 2. Heard Shri H.S. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Visweswaraiah for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner adverting to the complaint and the F.I.R. submits that for the offence which is said to have taken place on 21.08.2016, the complainant has lodged the FIR on 10.12.2016. When the allegation is commission of offences punishable under Section 354 A of IPC, the inordinate delay in filing the compliant per se indicate that the complaint is false. 4. He further submits that in Crl. Misc. No. 9083/2016 filed before the Learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioner had the benefit of an interim bail. However, on the premise that the petitioner has committed other similar offences, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition. He submits that the petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 246/2016 for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and he has been released on bail. In the circumstances, the petitioner apprehends that he may be again arrested by the police and accordingly, prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, Sri. Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP opposing the bail petition submits that the police have to investigate the matter thoroughly by interrogating the accused petitioner. Therefore, if he is enlarged on bail, it may hamper investigation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. 7. It is significant to note that the offences are said to have been committed on 21.08.2016 and F.I.R. is registered on 10.12.2016. Such inordinate delay in filing the complaint coupled with the fact that the petitioner had the benefit of an interim order before learned Sessions Judge, in my considered view, the petitioner deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. Such inordinate delay in filing the complaint coupled with the fact that the petitioner had the benefit of an interim order before learned Sessions Judge, in my considered view, the petitioner deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. In the premise, petition merits consideration and the petitioner shall be entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioner before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 20.02.2017, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer; (ii) Petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation and appear as and when called upon; (iii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every 1st and 3rd Sunday between 10 a.m. & 1 p.m. till the charge-sheet is filed; (iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer; (v) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; (vi) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Petition allowed.