JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.20 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.3048 of 2018 instituted under Sections 313/376 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the parties. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was having consensual physical relationship with the opposite party No.2-informant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court page-25 of the brief, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the said complaint, the victim has identified herself to be the wife of the petitioner and she has also stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 17th October, 2018 in Sai Mandir and since then she and the petitioner have been residing as husband and wife. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court towards page-26-31 of the brief, which is the copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that therein she has admitted that she is a major lady her age being 25 years. It is then submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also stated that the petitioner put vermillion on her head and they used to reside as husband and wife for considerable period of time during which she also conceived. It is further submitted that since the informant admits that she is the wife of the petitioner hence, no offence of rape is made out and so far as offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that there is absolutely no document in the record in support of the same and the said bald allegations has been made because of alleged disharmony between the petitioner and the victim. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to pay ad interim victim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- without prejudice to his defence in this case in favour of the prosecutrix/informant of this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 4. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to pay ad interim victim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- without prejudice to his defence in this case in favour of the prosecutrix/informant of this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhatisgarh,MANU/SC/0522/2019 wherein in the facts and circumstances of the case where the accused of that case expressed his desire to the prosecutrix that he wanted to meet her and accordingly they were together from 2:00 pm of 29.04.2013 to 3:00 pm of 30.04.2013 and during the period despite the refusal of the prosecutrix, the accused established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marrying her but he ultimately did not marry her. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India held that the case amounts to rape. 5. In this respect, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts of Anurag Soni (supra) are entirely different from the facts of this case as unlike that case in this case the prosecutrix claims that the petitioner is her husband and they have married in a temple which was not in the case of Anurag Soni (supra) and it is the admitted case of the victim that she was living with her husband being the petitioner for a considerable period of time which was also not in the case of Anurag Soni (supra). Hence, the ratio of the case of Anurag Soni (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the ratio of the case of Anurag Soni (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, the petitioner will be enlarged on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs.2,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation without prejudice to his defence in this case drawn in favour of the prosecutrix/informant of this case and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.20 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.3048 of 2018 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. In case the petitioner deposits the said demand draft, the court below is directed to issue notice to the prosecutrix/informant of this case and on her proper identification, the court below shall handover the same to her forthwith.