JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is A-1, in Crime No.694 of 2016 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, filed the present application under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in the above crime, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354(c), 384, 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21-12-2016 at about 13.00 hours, the de facto complainant namely Meesala Jagadeeswari lodged a complaint with the aforesaid police station stating that her marriage with one Koteswara Rao, an Advocate was performed in the year 2007. The petitioner is doing Real Estate business. During the year 2014, when the de facto complainant was at her parents house, the petitioner came in to contact her father and at that time, he attributed deceitful allegations that her husband is a womanizer and by that inducement, committed rape on her on 12-4-2014 and took nude photos to her husband and her father. Putting her in fear, he continuously committed rape on her. Thus he committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the report, dated 21-12-2016 and the bank statements in proof of transfer of money from one account to another with regard real estate business between the petitioner and the complainant. He further contended that the alleged offence of rape is not prima facie established; that due to disputes with regard to real estate business between the petitioner and de facto complainant, the present case is allegedly foisted against the petitioner and prayed to grant bail. He also further contended that as the entire investigation is completed, the question of petitioner’s interference in the event of enlarging him on bail, does not arise. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that major part of the investigation is completed and he fairly conceded that police did not seize any nude photos of the complainant allegedly taken by the petitioner and no other material was collected at least to prove that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant. 5. As seen from the allegations made in the complaint, dated 21-12-2016, the petitioner allegedly induced her by deceitful words by making certain allegations against her husband that he was womanizer and thereafter, had sexual intercourse with her. 5. As seen from the allegations made in the complaint, dated 21-12-2016, the petitioner allegedly induced her by deceitful words by making certain allegations against her husband that he was womanizer and thereafter, had sexual intercourse with her. Thus, he committed the alleged rape on her by obtaining her consent by deceitful words that he had taken nude photos of her and threatened her to show the same to her husband and her father and by way of threat he used to enjoy sex with her. 6. On over all consideration of material, as on today, major part of the investigation is completed and so far four witnesses were examined, who are family members of the de facto complainant and waiting medical report and F.S.L. report. On the other hand, voluminous documentary evidence i.e., bank statements were produced before the Court i.e., transactions from the year 2014 till filing of complainant. Those statements would indicate that the were business transactions between the complainant and the petitioner in relation to real estate business. That apart, the Investigating agency did not collect any material directly to establish that the petitioner committed rape on de facto complainant. In the absence of any material, more particularly medical evidence, it is difficult to accept at this stage that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant against her consent. Therefore, I find prima facie no material against the petitioner that he committed such offence. 7. For grant of regular bail, the Court has to consider the gravity of the offence and pre-trial detention and possibility of committing the same offence repeatedly while on bail. The Apex Court in Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa (1) 2007 (3) ALT (Crl.) 56 (SC) = (2007) 14 SCC 537 has laid down certain guidelines, which reads as follows: (1) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (2) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness of apprehension of threat to the complainant; (3) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. In view of law declared by the Apex Court, the Court has to keep in mind all the above three guidelines and record its satisfaction that there is no prima facie material against the petitioner to conclude that he committed the offence. In view of law declared by the Apex Court, the Court has to keep in mind all the above three guidelines and record its satisfaction that there is no prima facie material against the petitioner to conclude that he committed the offence. In the present facts of the case, as on today there is absolutely no material to conclude that the petitioner committed the offense and on the other hand, there were money transfers between the parties, which would prima facie establish that the present case is foisted against the petitioner on account of such alleged business transaction. The petitioner is already in jail since 25-12-2016 and in view of the nature of evidence collected by the police as on today, I find that it is a case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner/A-1 is enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Further, the petitioner is directed to report before the Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. 12.00 Noon for a period of two (02) months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.