ORDER : Jobin Sebastian, J. This bail application seeking anticipatory bail has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.290 of 2025 of Kareelakulangara Police Station, registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023. 2. The prosecution allegation can be epitomized as follows:- The victim of this offence is a lady aged 44 years. During the year 2022 she was working at Andhra Pradesh in a Non-Governmental Organisation called ‘Bharatiya Suraksha Samskrit Foundation’. The accused in this case was also working in the same organisation representing the State of Goa. The victim and the accused were acquainted with each other and were in good relationship. While things being so, on 14.11.2022 while the foundation stone laying ceremony of the house of the accused was conducted, the victim also attended the same as an invitee. She was accompanied by her father. After the ceremony when all the invitees left, the victim went to a bedroom for taking rest and laid on a cot. After a shortwhile the accused touched on her legs with sexual intend. When the victim resisted, the accused forcefully closed her mouth using a towel and committed rape on her forcefully. Thereafter on 10.11.2024 the accused asked the victim to come to a hotel, and inside the said hotel he again committed rape on her forcefully after threatening her that he would publish the nude photos and videos of the victim which he had recorded. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the above said offence. 3. I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor and also perused the available records. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is totally innocent and the present case is foisted by the defacto complainant to grab money from him. Moreover it is contended that, prior to the registration of the present case a writ petition has been filed by the petitioner arraying the victim/defacto complainant in this case as a respondent, and in the said writ petition the grievance of the petitioner was that the victim had published the photos of the petitioner in the social media. In the said writ petition the petitioner sought a direction to remove the said photographs. In the said writ petition the petitioner sought a direction to remove the said photographs. According to the Counsel it was enraged by the said writ petition and as a counter to the same, the present case has been foisted by the defacto complainant with wild allegations. The learned Counsel further submitted that the inordinate delay occurred in lodging the FIR in this case itself reveals the hollowness of allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Counsel submitted that the petitioner was having a cordial and good relationship with the defacto complainant. Misusing the said situation the present case has been filed by the victim to loot money and to retaliate for the writ petition filed against her. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application with much vehemence highlighting the serious nature of offence alleged. According to him if anticipatory bail is granted the same will thwart the investigation of this case. 5. A perusal of the records reveals that it is a case in which a 44 year old lady has come forward with an allegation that she was subjected to sexual intercourse forcefully by the petitioner. As per the victim’s version it was on 14.11.2022 the petitioner committed rape on her. Notably the said incident was allegedly occurred while the victim visited the house of the petitioner to attend a foundation stone laying ceremony of the house of the petitioner. From the FIS itself it is gatherable that the alleged sexual act was committed while the victim was taking rest by laying in a cot inside the bedroom of the petitioner’s house. 6. There is specific allegation that it was without her consent the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Of course, the crucial question to be considered in this case is whether there occurred a sexual intercourse as alleged and if occurred, whether it was a consensual one or not. Admittedly, the incident in this case occurred inside the bedroom of the house of the petitioner. Though the same is not a reason to conclude that the victim was a consenting party to the coitus, the said circumstance assumes importance, when the question of consent is under consideration. Moreover as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner there is an inordinate delay of around two years in lodging the FIR in this case after the first incident. Moreover as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner there is an inordinate delay of around two years in lodging the FIR in this case after the first incident. Since the victim is an educated lady aged 44 years, the delay in lodging the FIR is highly suspicious. I am not oblivious of the fact that in rape cases delay in lodging FIR is not always fatal. Because several factors like dignity of the family, future of the victim etc. would weigh in the mind of the victim of a rape before rushing to a police station complaining that she was abused by a man. Therefore, ordinarily, the delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences pales into insignificance. Anyhow this is a case which there is a delay of two years. As already mentioned the victim of this offence is an educated lady having 44 years of age. So the delay in lodging FIR in this case cannot be viewed lightly. 7. I am cognizant of the fact that it is premature to enter into a finding regarding the question whether the alleged sexual intercourse was a consensual one or not. The same is a matter of evidence and hence can be relegated to be considered at the time of trial. Anyhow, the circumstances which I have discussed above persuade me to enter into a prima facie observation that the possibility of the alleged sexual act being consensual cannot be prima facie ruled out. Moreover granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner will no way hamper the smooth course of the investigation in this case especially when the co-operation of the petitioner in the ongoing probe can be well ensured by imposing stringent conditions in this order. 8. Considering all the above said aspects I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. (ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. (iii) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. (iii) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation including for potency examination and other medical examinations, and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case including the victim so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (v) The petitioner shall not contact the victim either directly or indirectly or through any electronic media. (vi) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. (vii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663] If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the investigating officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional Court, and if such an application is filed the jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders irrespective of the fact that this order is passed by this Court.