JUDGMENT : [1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to grant anticipatory bail in connection with FIR case No.23(10)2020 of Women Police Station, Thoubal registered under Sections 366, 417, 376 and 34 IPC. [2] The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2020 at 4.30 p.m., the complainant Laishram Sushmita Devi of Khangabok Cherapur Bamol Leikai lodged a written complaint to women Police Station, Thoubal stating that on 18.11.2019 at 5.15 pm, she was kidnapped by the petitioner Ningthoujam Dijen Singh of Lhangabok Lamlong Tangkha Leikai, Lamlong Bazar along with his friends numbering 7/8 from backward way of Waikhom Mani Girl’s College, Thoubal. Thereafter, the petitioner threatened to kill her, if she discloses about the incident to her parents and he raped her without her consent on the false pretext of marrying her. [3] According to the petitioner, he is serving as a Corporal in the Phalodi Air Force Station, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and he had affairs with the complainant since February, 2018. In order to arrive the destination of their love affairs, they agreed and decided to elope on 18.11.2019 at night around 9.00 pm. Accordingly, the complainant came out from her house at 9.00 p.m. on 18.11.2019 and met the petitioner while he was waiting near the gate ofthe complainant and as such the petitioner eloped with the complainant with full consent. On the same day, both are stayed for about two hours of the said night at the house of Laishram Sushil singh of Khangabok Tangkha Leikai, who is the maternal relative of the complainant and thereafter, both had continued to stay at the house of the petitioner located at Khangabok Tangkha Leikai. [4] The case of the petitioner is that he used to frequently visit the house of the complainant and the parents of the complainant had admitted that the petitioner to become their son-in-law. On 19.11.2019, the uncle of the petitioner and other village elders visited the residence of the complainant and observed Nupi Haidokpa ceremony in accordance with Manipuri Hindu custom which is still in vogue amongst the Manipur Hindus and the same is still continuing. On 19.11.2019, the uncle of the petitioner and other village elders visited the residence of the complainant and observed Nupi Haidokpa ceremony in accordance with Manipuri Hindu custom which is still in vogue amongst the Manipur Hindus and the same is still continuing. The uncle of the petitioner, local elders and parents of the complainant had jointly agreed and decided to perform the marriage of the complainant and the petitioner by fixing a date in the future after consultation with a good astrologer and also after performance of the annual grand feast of death ceremony of his grandfather which was to be held on 27.06.2020. Several times, the family of the petitioners and elders visited the house of the complainant and discussed about the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant. Thereafter, there arose a misconception to the family of the complainant, as they did not want to perform the marriage with the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has been staying outside of Manipur for his service and as such there is no possibility to return to Manipur for a long time except on his retirement from service. [5] On 17.10.2020, the father of the complainant made a report orally to the Pradhan of Khangabok Part-III Gram Panchayat to settle the dispute between them. Accordingly, on 17.10.2020 there was a sitting at the residence of Pradhan at Khangabok Part-III with the local elders of both the parties and discussed the dispute. On that day, separation of the complainant from the petitioner; demand of Rs.20,00,000/- by the father of the complainant for her livelihood and the protest of the father of the petitioner to the demand of the father of the complainant and also allowing him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the father of the complainant were discussed. Due to difference of opinion, the matter was not settled between them on that day. While that being so, after a lapse of 11 months from the date of elopement, the complainant lodged a complaint under the influence of her parents and relatives alleging that she was kidnapped on 18.11.2019 by the petitioner and forcibly raped her. [6] According to the petitioner, the allegations levelled against him are concocted, as they had been in love affairs since February, 2018 upto 18.11.2019. [6] According to the petitioner, the allegations levelled against him are concocted, as they had been in love affairs since February, 2018 upto 18.11.2019. In fact, on 18.11.2019, the complainant had called the petitioner to come at near the gate of her residence at about 9.00 p.m. over the mobile phone for elopement and the officer-in-charge of the Women Police Station, Thoubal without any enquiry as to the allegations made by the complainant in the ejahar, had registered the case which is the time barred. The petitioner contended that on 17.10.2020, the women police Station, Thoubal issued a police summon to the petitioner to appear on 18.10.2020 at 11.30 a.m. in connection with the complainant lodged by the complainant. Accordingly, on 18.12.2020, the father of the petitioner visited the Women police Station, Thoubal and the investigating officer directed the father of the petitioner to produce the petitioner on the next day. Immediately, the petitioner filed Cril.Misc. (AB) Case No.54 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal and obtained interim order on 20.10.2020 and thereafter met the investigating officer along with the interim order. The investigating officer, thereafter, directed the petitioner to appear on 25.10.2020. In the meantime, on 24.10.2020, the FIR No.23(10) 2020 has been registered by the WPS, Thoubal without making any enquiry under the influence of the parents of the complainant and relatives. [7] According to the petitioner, on 25.10.2020, when the petitioner appeared before the WPS, Thoubal, he was formally arrested in connection with the said case and the petitioner had furnished the PR bond of Rs.50,000/- and one surety bond to the investigating officer of the case. In the meanwhile, the anticipatory bail application came up for final hearing and on 09.11.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal dismissed the anticipatory bail application. After the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition, the personnel of WPS, Thoubal visited the house of the petitioner located at Khangabok on 20.11.2020 and asked the family members of the petitioner to surrender the petitioner before the investigating officer within a period of one week. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. [8] The respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on an examination of the victim, she has stated that she had love affairs with the accused person since 2018. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. [8] The respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on an examination of the victim, she has stated that she had love affairs with the accused person since 2018. On 18.11.2019, when the accused is in Manipur, the accused called the victim through phone in the morning and at about 5.15 p.m. while the victim was returning from her college by passenger auto and she walked by foot on the side of the way towards her house, the victim saw two four wheeler vehicles parked on the side of the way and when she tried to pass the last vehicle, the accused suddenly opened the side door of the vehicles and forcibly kidnapped her along with his friends and she was unable to shout due to cover her mouth by his hand inside the vehicle and took the victim at the house of one Laishram Sushil Singh. On reaching that house, the victim requested the accused again and again not to do so as the victim was young and want to finish her study. Instead of accepting, the accused threatened the victim to be killed, if she disclose to her parents and raped the victim without her consent and against her will. [9] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the complainant were in love and the case is registered due to a misunderstanding between the two families. He would submit that both the petitioner and the complainant eloped for performing marriage between them and the petitioner never kidnapped the complainant. In fact, the elopement of the petitioner and the complainant was very well known to the parents of the complainant and also the parents agreed for their marriage. However, due to some misunderstanding the marriage was not performed and the complaint was lodged after a lapse of 11 months from the date of elopement with false allegations. [10] The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner possess a good moral character and also having a good reputation in the society and as such if he is arrested or detained in the police custody as well as in the judicial custody in connection with the allegations made in the FIR by the police, an injury shall be caused to the petitioner, which cannot be compensated by money. Further, the petitioner is now serving as Corporal in the Phalodi Air Force Station, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and as if he is arrested by the police of WPS, Thoubal, his service shall be doomed. Hence, prays for anticipatory bail. [11] Per contra, the learned Government counsel contended that the petitioner kidnapped the complainant and threatened the complainant to be killed, if she disclosed to her parents and raped the complainant without her consent and against her will. Hence, he strongly oppose the grant of anticipatory bail. [12] This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. [13] Admittedly, there is a love affair between the petitioner and the complainant, which fact was admitted by the complainant herself in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. [14] It appears that the alleged occurrence is stated to be occurred on 18.11.2019 at 5.15 p.m. whereas the complaint was lodged on 24.10.2020 nearly after a lapse of 11 months. On a perusal of the available materials, it is seen that in between 18.11.2019 and 24.10.2020, there were several discussions/talks were held between the families of the petitioner and the complainant for performing marriage of the petitioner and the complainant and in that discussions the village elders were also participated. However, due to some misunderstanding between the two family members, the marriage was not solemnized and ultimately, the complainant lodged the complaint against the petitioner stating that he kidnapped her and raped without her consent and against her will. Whether the petitioner kidnapped the complainant or whether the petitioner and the complainant eloped are to be decided at the time of trial and now it cannot be held that this is a case of clear kidnapping. [15] In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent stated that during the course of investigation, on 26.10.2020 conducted the medico legal examination of both the victim girl and accused person at the Department of Forensic Medicine, JHIMS, porompat by observing formalities. In the Medico legal examination report of the victim girl the concerned Doctor opined that there were no sing of use of force; sexual violence cannot be ruled out. In the Medico legal examination report of the victim girl the concerned Doctor opined that there were no sing of use of force; sexual violence cannot be ruled out. Whereas, in the medico legal examination report of the undernoted accused person the concerned Doctor opined that no definite opinion can be given as to whether the alleged accused has performed recent sexual intercourse in the ordinary way and there is nothing to suspect about his potency. When the above is the opinion of the Doctor, it cannot now be held that the petitioner raped the complainant against her will. In fact, the truth will come only after examination of the witnesses, including the Doctor concerned. [16] It appears that earlier, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions judge, Thoubal, Manipur for grant of anticipatory bail. By the order dated 20.10.2020, the learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail and adjourned the matter to 27.10.2020 for report and hearing, if any. The petitioner also surrendered before the Investigating Officer and executed the PR bond. Thereafter, on 9.11.2020, the bail petition was taken up for hearing and the learned Sessions Judge vacated the interim anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit. While dismissing the petition, the learned Sessions Judge, observed as under: “7. After having heard the Ld. Counsels of both sides and after perusal of the relevant papers, it is learnt that on 18.11.2019 the v/girl was kidnapped by the accused Ningthoujam Dijen Singh and had committed rape on her on the false pretext of marrying her. The accused along with his parents kept on postponing the marriage ceremony of the accused and the v/girl until finally they rejected the marriage ceremony on the proposal of giving Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim’s family as compensation. As such, the accused had committed a non-compoundable offence which is punishable under Section 366/417/376/34 of the I.P.Code.” [17] At this juncture, it is to be noted that it is the say of the petitioner that the family of the complainant alone not interested in performing the marriage for the reason that the petitioner has been staying outside of Manipur for his service and there is no possibility to return to Manipur for a long time except on his retirement from service. When the statement of the petitioner is that the family of the complainant are not interested in performing the marriage, how the learned Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the accused along with his parents kept on postponing the marriage on the proposal of giving Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim’s family as compensation. In fact, these are all the matters of oral and documentary evidence. [18] The provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It relates to personal liberty of a particular person and such a provision calls for liberal interpretation of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [19] Section 438 of Cr.P.C. clearly stipulates in the beginning statement itself that when a person has a reasonable apprehension to believe that they can be arrested on an accusation for commitment of a non-bailable offence, they can move the High Court or the Court of Sessions for grant of an anticipatory bail. The power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised by the Court in very exceptional cases. The Court Must be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause and a reasonable ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 Cr.P.C. protects the right to life and personal liberty of such persons by providing them with a remedy against frivolous detention. In a country where rifts and rivalries are common, its citizens should have a remedy which prevents disgracing their right to life and personal liberty. [20] In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth V. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in respect of application for anticipatory bail. In paragraph 25.10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “25.10. [20] In Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth V. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines in respect of application for anticipatory bail. In paragraph 25.10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “25.10. We all also reproduce para 112 of the judgment in Siddaram Satingappa case, where in Court delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (c) The possibility of the applicant of flee from justice; (d) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other offence; (e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (g) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Section 34 and 149 of the penal Code, 1860 the Court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the case is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail,” [21] As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra), frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. No Inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal anticipatory bail. It should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each in consonance with the legislative intention. [22] The law is well settled that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on accused in certain circumstances may be permissible, but there cannot be presumption of guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent forum or Court. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. [23] It is the duty of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction on proper way to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. If Courts do not interfere, we are troubling the path on destruction. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, decided on 11.11.2020. [24] It is also well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (16) SCALE 870 , considering all the earlier judgments, observed that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (16) SCALE 870 , considering all the earlier judgments, observed that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. [25] Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in FIR Case No.23(10)2020 on the file of Women Police Station, Thoubal for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 417, 376 and 34 IPC, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today, failing which this order shall automatically stand cancelled. (iii) The petitioner should report to the respondent police daily at 10 a.m., until further order. (iv) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. (v) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as well as the trial Court. (vi) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities in future. (vii) If he violates anyone of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. (viii) This Court has not delve into the merits of the matter and the views expressed in this order are prima facie only and the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same during trial.