JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2022 instituted under Sections 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. The prosecution story is summarized as under : (i) According to the victim-cum-informant she was residing at Tula Apartment, Morhabadi, Ranchi. For the first time, the informant met with the petitioner Abhishek Rastogi @ Abhishek Kumar Rastogi at Lalpur, who was residing in House No. 24, Kalptaru, Harmu, Ranchi. Both developed friendship and started visiting with each other. (ii) In the month of November, 2020 on request of present petitioner the victim left her rented house situated at Morhabadi and started living with the petitioner at his house situated at Harmu, where on assurance of solemnizing marriage with the victim, the petitioner repeatedly indulged in sexual intercourse with her, due to which she became pregnant three times and her pregnancy was got terminated by the present petitioner by supplying MTP Kit. Later on, the victim-informant came to know from the petitioner about his engagement with another woman and marriage date is also fixed, to which she stoutly protested but in vain. Victim was constrained to lodge this FIR. Argument on behalf of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that if the contents of FIR are taken to be true on its face value, it indicates the consensual sexual relationship between the petitioner and the informant, as such no offence under Section 376 IPC is attracted in this case. The real fact is that the petitioner was never indulged in any relationship with the informant, rather due to friendship informant had taken loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 10.05.2022 from the petitioner for prosecuting her study and personal expenses. The petitioner demanded the said amount in the month of July 2022, which she declined and falsely implicated and dragged the petitioner in this case, with a view to save herself from returning the loan amount. (ii) It is further submitted that the petitioner has solemnized his marriage with another girl namely Nidhi Rastogi on 08th July, 2022 and FIR was lodged just after solemnization of marriage of the petitioner on 11.07.2022 with a view to take revenge. (ii) It is further submitted that the petitioner has solemnized his marriage with another girl namely Nidhi Rastogi on 08th July, 2022 and FIR was lodged just after solemnization of marriage of the petitioner on 11.07.2022 with a view to take revenge. (iii) It is submitted that the informant is grown up educated girl and she was aware about the caste difference and hassle in solemnizing marriage which was likely to be opposed by their family members. She was aware about the moral quality and significance of act allegedly indulged with the petitioner. Thus, the offence of 376 IPC is not attracted. (iv) The informant changing her name at social media attempted twice to create obstacle in the marriage of the petitioner. Firstly, with one Ragini Rastogi in the month of August, 2021 and thereafter with Nidhi, who is presently wife of the petitioner, through Instagram chatting and other means. (v) The petitioner is reputed businessman and undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. Arguments on behalf of the State and the victim 5. (i) Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State assisted with learned counsel appearing for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and the victim has also filed counter affidavit. (ii) It has been submitted on behalf of the victim that the petitioner from the very beginning was in physical relationship with the informant on false pretext of marriage. His only intention was to get consent for satisfying his sexual lust and nothing more. He has got terminated the pregnancy of the informant three times by supplying medicines against her will and the allegation about taking loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the petitioner is palpably false, fabricated and concocted story, rather money transaction was in the usual course of business of the petitioner. The petitioner has a drug license and supplies medicines to Animal Husbandry Department. At the instance of the petitioner, the money was withdrawn and handed over to him. There was no occasion to informant to falsely implicate the petitioner due to money transactions pledging her prestige and honour in the society. The petitioner has a drug license and supplies medicines to Animal Husbandry Department. At the instance of the petitioner, the money was withdrawn and handed over to him. There was no occasion to informant to falsely implicate the petitioner due to money transactions pledging her prestige and honour in the society. The petitioner has ruined the life of the informant physically, mentally and emotionally due to serious crime committed against her. Initially, she was moved pillar to post for getting her F.I.R. registered at Mahila Police Station, Ranchi and was advised to lodge case at Patna at the native place of the petitioner. The petitioner has committed a serious and heinous offence, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail which is fit to be dismissed. Order 6. Considering the rival contentions advanced by both the parties as discussed above, prima facie it appears that there is allegation against the petitioner for establishing sexual intercourse with the informant on the assurance of solemnization of marriage and the conduct of the petitioner shows that from the very inception he was intending to satisfy his own sexual lust and never intended to solemnize marriage with the informant-victim. As such her consent was not a free consent and actuated by “misconception of fact”. The plea of the petitioner about advancing loan, false implication as well as consensual relationship is the subject matter of trial to be decided on merits on the basis of evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons without going into entire merits of the case and considering the gravity of the offence and materials showing direct involvement of petitioner in a heinous crime against woman, I do not feel inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.