ORDER : 1. Apprehending his arrest, the accused-petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 571/2016 registered on 3.7.2016 at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) for the offences under Sections 376, 384 read with Section 120-B IPC at the instance of prosecutrix. The allegation against the petitioner is that he entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused and committed rape upon the prosecutrix on 1.11.2015 at Jaipur and also on 1.2.2016 at Delhi. The further allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape upon the mother of prosecutrix on 27.9.2015 and 8.11.2015 both at Delhi. The bail application filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Woman Atrocities Cases No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide order dated 16.1.2017. 2. In support of the application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as below:- (1) There is unexplained delay of about ten months to lodge the report of alleged rapes committed upon the prosecutrix as well as her mother from the first date of rape committed on 27.9.2015 at Delhi despite the fact that the fact of commission of rapes upon prosecutrix was disclosed by her to her mother on 20.5.2016 and by her mother to the prosecutrix on the same day and by both of them to Shri Naman Katta, brother of prosecutrix and this alone is clear indication of the fact that false allegation of such a serious offence has been levelled against the petitioner more particularly in view of the fact that the FIR has been lodged only after dispute between petitioner and some of his relatives at one hand and brother of prosecutrix on the other hand arose on account of non-payment of some money which was to be paid by him in respect of business undertaken between them. This shows that prosecutrix alongwith her mother and brother has levelled false allegation against the petitioner with a sole object to pressurize the petitioner and his relatives not to demand the money outstanding against the brother of prosecutrix. This shows that prosecutrix alongwith her mother and brother has levelled false allegation against the petitioner with a sole object to pressurize the petitioner and his relatives not to demand the money outstanding against the brother of prosecutrix. (2) As per the allegation made petitioner committed rape upon the mother of prosecutrix at Delhi on 27.9.2015 but despite that mother of prosecutrix, who is an educated and well to do woman of about 48 years, kept mum and did not disclose this fact to any person including her daughter and son and invited petitioner to inaugurate a shop at Jaipur on 1.11.2015. No plausible explanation has been furnished by mother of the prosecutrix why she invited petitioner from Delhi to inaugurate the shop at Jaipur despite the fact that he committed rape upon her on 27.9.2015. (3) The prosecutrix claims that petitioner committed rape upon her on 1.11.2015 in the bed room of her brother at their own house situated at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur at about 6.30 p.m. whereas the mobile phone location of prosecutrix shows that she at the alleged time was present at the shop situated at Bapu Nagar, Jaipur which was inaugurated by petitioner on that day. When prosecutrix was not present at the place of said incident how it is possible for petitioner to commit rape upon her more particularly in view of the fact that at the alleged time several other persons including close family members were present at the house of prosecutrix. 1.11.2015 has conveniently been selected by the prosecutrix as the date of alleged incident as it is an admitted fact that petitioner was present on that day at Jaipur and also visited her house after inaugurating the shop some time in the morning. The prosecutrix has failed to furnish any plausible explanation for keeping mum and not disclosing about the alleged incident to her mother and other family members immediately. (4) The prosecutrix alleges that the second incident of rape occurred on 1.2.2016 at Delhi when she visited there alongwith her mother to participate in ‘Satsang’ conducted by petitioner and co-accused persuaded her to go inside the room of petitioner where he committed rape. (4) The prosecutrix alleges that the second incident of rape occurred on 1.2.2016 at Delhi when she visited there alongwith her mother to participate in ‘Satsang’ conducted by petitioner and co-accused persuaded her to go inside the room of petitioner where he committed rape. It is unnatural on the part of the prosecutrix to go inside the bed room of petitioner alone in the night only on the persuasion of coaccused despite the fact that the petitioner raped her on 1.11.2015 at Jaipur. 1.2.2016 has also been conveniently selected by the prosecutrix as a day of commission of second rape upon her because it is an admitted fact that she and her mother visited the house of petitioner on that day at Delhi to participate in the ‘Satsang’. (5) It is an admitted fact that messages exchanged between petitioner and prosecutrix even after these two incidents and for this also no explanation has been furnished by the petitioner which also indicates that the allegations made against the petitioner are totally false and concocted. (6) From the material made available on record alongwith the application and the evidence collected during the course of investigation it is clear that the petitioner is mere a simple businessman dealing mainly in timber and plywood independently and also in partnership alongwith other persons but the prosecutrix and her family members has deliberately projected the petitioner as a religious Guru having divine powers without any basis with a sole object to get sympathy from the Court and to show that the report was not lodged immediately as they were under the influence and pressure of petitioner. No evidence could be collected during investigation to show even prima facie that petitioner was managing an “Ashram” or temple as religious person and at the most it can be said that Satsang was performed on each Monday at the residential house of petitioner at Delhi in which, apart from other, prosecutrix, her mother and other family members also participated regularly. Alongwith FIR prosecutrix has produced some photographs alleging that as per these photographs petitioner is having illicit relations with several women whereas it is an admitted fact that the women/girls shown in these photographs alongwith petitioner are his close family members including his daughter and deceased-wife. Alongwith FIR prosecutrix has produced some photographs alleging that as per these photographs petitioner is having illicit relations with several women whereas it is an admitted fact that the women/girls shown in these photographs alongwith petitioner are his close family members including his daughter and deceased-wife. These false and mischievous allegations made by the prosecutrix show that her sole purpose was to paint the petitioner as a person having illicit relations with several women. (7) It is also alleged by the prosecutrix that on 20.5.2016 petitioner sent obscene whatsapp message asking her to go for Honeymoon with him as a result thereof she became horrified and could not control herself and thereupon she narrated the incidents to her mother but from the material made available on record it is clear that even after 20.5.2016 whatsapp messages exchanged not only between petitioner and prosecutrix but also between petitioner and mother of prosecutrix which fact further shows that no such incidents ever occurred as alleged by the prosecutrix. (8) During the course of investigation petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer twice and his mobile phone was also seized but it is not the prosecution case that any obscene photograph or video clipping of mother of prosecutrix was found therein and this fact falsifies the claim of prosecutrix and her mother that they were raped and black-mailed by petitioner after showing them obscene photograph of the mother. (9) The prosecutrix claims that she took back-up from the mobile phone of petitioner before FIR was lodged but it is not her claim that in the mobile phone of petitioner her or her mother’s obscene photograph or video clipping were also found. The story of the obscene photograph and video clipping has deliberately been fabricated in order to show that they were raped by the petitioner after showing said photograph/video clipping. It has not been explained when and at what place the said photograph was taken. (10) From the invitation card prepared on the occasion of opening ceremony of the shop on 1.11.2015 at Jaipur it is further clear that the alleged ‘Guruji’ is some other person as per this invitation card the inauguration of shop was to be done by the petitioner with the blessings of His Holiness ‘Guruji’. (10) From the invitation card prepared on the occasion of opening ceremony of the shop on 1.11.2015 at Jaipur it is further clear that the alleged ‘Guruji’ is some other person as per this invitation card the inauguration of shop was to be done by the petitioner with the blessings of His Holiness ‘Guruji’. If petitioner would have been ‘Guruji’ as claimed and alleged by the prosecutrix and her family members it would never been mentioned that in the card that the inauguration of shop is with the blessings of His Holiness ‘Guruji’. This fact further fortifies the contention of petitioner that the petitioner has deliberately been projected as a religious ‘Guruji’ only to show that the report could not be lodged in time as the prosecutrix and her family members were under his influence and pressure. (11) That whatsapp messages exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix from 25.5.2016 to 27.5.2016 show that relations between brother of prosecutrix and his wife were strained and prosecutrix sought advise from the petitioner to get their dispute resolved and to ensure that their marriage survives. Had anything happened as alleged in the FIR and the message dated 20.5.2016 sent by the petitioner to the prosecutrix had any bad intention of petitioner, the prosecutrix would have never approached the petitioner after few days to intervene and resolve the marital dispute between her brother and his wife. It is strange on the part of mother of prosecutrix that whatsapp messages exchanged between her and petitioner from 25.5.2016 to 29.5.2016 even after prosecutrix disclosed about the said incidents to her on 20.5.2016 which according to her were very shocking. (12) Jaipur police has no right to register FIR for incidents allegedly occurred at Delhi and investigate and arrest the petitioner in respect thereof. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutrix supported by learned counsel for the prosecutrix/complainant, submitted that from the evidence collected during the course of investigation and more particularly from the statements of prosecutrix and her mother recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the allegations made against the petitioner are prima facie made out and there is no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner projected himself as a religious ‘Guru’ having divine power and prosecutrix and her family members including her mother were constantly under his influence and pressure and, therefore, they could not report the incident immediately and it was done when the petitioner committed rape upon the prosecutrix also twice and this fact was disclosed by her to her mother on 20.5.2016 and thereafter to Shri Naman Katta on 20.6.2016. Inviting attention of Court towards a book written by petitioner it was further submitted that as per this book it is clear that petitioner projected himself as a religious ‘Guru’ having divine powers. It was also submitted that the investigating agency has found the allegation against the petitioner truthfull and, therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the evidence collected during the course of investigation which has been produced before me by way of case diary and more particularly looking to the age of the prosecutrix and her mother and their conduct, but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and demerit of the case I am inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 6. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) in F.I.R. No. 571/2016, is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner-Rajnish Grover son of Shri Mahendra Pal Grover, he shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction 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; (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.