ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 instituted under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and alleged sexual intercourse between the parties was consensual. It is further submitted that the informant developed friendship with the petitioner in between the year 2012-2013 and the consensual sexual intercourse was established since the year 2017. It is further submitted that petitioner had never promised to marry with the informant. Since, the petitioner has got service in Assam Rifles, hence, the informant became adamant to solemnize marriage with him and started putting pressure on him for marriage and lodged this false case. Petitioner is a married person having no criminal antecedents. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there are serious and direct allegation against the petitioner that he developed friendship with the victim girl in the year 2012-2013 and thereafter, started alluring her for physical relationship under false pretext of marriage with her and also used to serve her anti-pregnancy medicines. It is further contended that ultimately the petitioner promised to marry with informant after marriage of his own sister which was also solemnized in the year 2021. Inspite of that petitioner did not marry with informant rather entangled with another girl namely Ranju Kumari and solemnized marriage with her. There was malafide intention of the petitioner from very inception of entire episode and that he desired to satisfy his own lust and ruined the life of informant. It further appears that there was no unforeseen circumstances beyond his control that he was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Therefore, the act of petitioner constitutes rape as the consent of informant was taken under the misconception of fact that he would marry her. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Therefore, the act of petitioner constitutes rape as the consent of informant was taken under the misconception of fact that he would marry her. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as depicted in the FIR and asserted by learned counsel for the informant clearly goes to show that petitioner has made false promise of marriage with the informant which he never intended to fulfill. Petitioner’s indulgence in sexual activities with the informant shows his clandestine motive. At this juncture, the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner about consensual sexual intercourse and false implication of petitioner cannot be sustained which is to be decided at trial. 6. Considering the overall factual aspects of the case and gravity of offence committed by petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected.