ORDER The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.522/2019 of Nedupuzha Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.376, 406 & 506(i) of the IPC, on the basis of FIS given by lady defacto complainant on 19.9.2019 at about 5 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened for the period from 26.3.2017 to 26.1.2018. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, the lady defacto complainant aged 32 years was having an intense love affair with the petitioner accused aged 42 years and he had assured her and made her believe that he would marry her, and on the basis of said assurance, they had sexual relationship on various occasions for the period commencing from 26.3.2017 onwards in her house and later in July, 2017 in a hotel near Santa Cruiz International Airport, Mumbai, then in a hotel in Kozhikode in November, 2017 and then in a Hotel in Chennai on 26.1.2018 and various other places, and later he had also taken away 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rupees Four Lakhs and thereafter he has abandoned his interest to marry her and has ditched her and thereby the petitioner has committed the above said offences. 3. Sri.B.Raman Pillai, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. S.Prasun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused has elaborately taken this Court's attention to the contents of FIS in this crime as well as various other documents like Anx.A3, which is yet another complaint given by the same lady defacto complainant before the District Police Chief, as against the alleged conduct of the petitioner, and also Anx.A5 sworn affidavit filed by the lady before the Family Court in the divorce proceedings initiated by her husband, etc. It is pointed out that as per the allegations in the FIS her case is that, both of them became acquainted with each other since 2016, and she was then married to a person called Vishnu and due to marital discord she had decided to initiate divorce proceedings against the spouse. An intense love affair was developed between the petitioner and the lady defacto complainant, and that they had sexual relationship at various places as mentioned briefly herein above, and that the petitioner had taken Rupees Four Lakhs and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her, etc. An intense love affair was developed between the petitioner and the lady defacto complainant, and that they had sexual relationship at various places as mentioned briefly herein above, and that the petitioner had taken Rupees Four Lakhs and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her, etc. Further that the very same complainant had previously given Anx.A3 complaint/petition dated 7.9.2019 which is hardly 12 days prior to the submission of the instant FIS dated 19.9.2019 and in Anx.A3, and a reading of Anx.A3 would make it clear that she has not made any allegations that the petitioner has raped her, and there is only a brief mention in para 3 of Anx.A3 that the petitioner has been utilizing her both financially and physically, and no details of sexual relationship leave alone allegations of rape are made out therein. The main thrust of allegations in Anx.A3 is that she apprehends that the petitioner might harm her, and that the District Police Chief should take steps to provide her police protection so allow her to lead a peaceful life. Further she has stated therein that the petitioner is a person who would go to any extent to marry her. However, the lady defacto complainant has admitted that she is married to a person and that he has filed divorce application before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground that she has committed adultery, and the alleged paramour is the petitioner herein, etc. Therein, the defacto complainant herein has filed Anx. A5 counter affidavit dated 9.10.2018 before the Family Court stating and asserting that she never had any sexual relationship with the petitioner herein, and that the allegations made by her husband that she was leading a adulterous life with the petitioner herein is absolutely false and fabricated. Further the defacto complainant knew that the petitioner was a married man going by her own admitted allegations in the above said materials. 4. Further the defacto complainant knew that the petitioner was a married man going by her own admitted allegations in the above said materials. 4. On the basis of this admitted case of the prosecutrix, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner accused would vehemently urge that, even an intelligent reading of the present FIS would make it clear like the day light that even if it is assumed for argument sake that the alleged sexual incidents have happened, then the same would have happened only on the basis of consent between the parties and not otherwise, and therefore the vital ingredients of rape are not made out in this case. The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would also place reliance on various decisions rendered by the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court which has laid down the substantial and vital distinction between rape and consensual sexual relationship between the parties, and it has been held that in a case where the lady and man have sexual relationship for quite some time, then it cannot be said that, there is an element of rape involved as the relationship is mainly on the basis of consent between the parties, and that mere promise to marry and breach of such promise cannot be the basis to contend that the consent was obtained on the basis of misconception of fact as envisaged under Sec.90 of the IPC. Accordingly it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he may be granted anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions, as his custodial interrogation is not required in this case. 5. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor has strongly opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and has pointed out that the allegations raised in this case are very serious. 6. Accordingly it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he may be granted anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions, as his custodial interrogation is not required in this case. 5. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor has strongly opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and has pointed out that the allegations raised in this case are very serious. 6. After having heard both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly testing the facts of this case in the light of the judicial precedents which has laid down the substantial distinction between rape and consensual sexual relationship between the parties, as also some of the aspects flowing out from Anx.A3 petition and Anx.A5 affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, etc, this Court is persuaded to take the view that the petitioner has made out a strong probable case that his custodial interrogation is not necessary or warranted for effectuating smooth and fair conduct of investigation in this crime. 7. Accordingly it is ordered that, in the event of the petitioner being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/-and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature. ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection. iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever. If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time. With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.