ORDER : Bechu Kurian Thomas, J. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.343/2025 of Kothamangalam Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under sections 332(b) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023. 2. According to the prosecution, on 19.11.2024 at around 2.30 P.M the accused trespassed into the rented house of the defacto complainant where she was residing with her family and raped her and thereby committed the offences alleged. 3. Sri. Abhilash S. Francis, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the petitioner has no involvement in the crime. It is further stated that on 19.11.2024, the petitioner was not even in Ernakulam District as he was in Perinthalmanna in connection with his work as a CCTV Technician at the ABC Study Centre, Perinthalmanna. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per Annexure A4 train ticket, it is evident that petitioner travelled from Angadipuram Railway Station to Thrissur at 8.23 pm and the electronic reservation slip of his journey from Thrissur to Aluva on 20.11.2024 is also an indication that the serious allegation raised against him are totally false. The learned counsel further submitted that the tower location of the petitioner on his mobile phone on the date of incident will also clearly prove that he is totally innocent and that the complaint registered by the defacto complainant is false. 4. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon Annexure A6 and Annexure A7 chat history of the petitioner with the victim on 19.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 respectively indicating that, both of them were at different places during the relevant time. According to the learned counsel the further WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 26.11.2024 and 12.01.2025 also indicates that she had even invited him to come home and they were even thinking about a marriage, all of which pointing towards a consensual relationship, if any. According to the learned counsel, even though the incident as alleged had not occurred, still, at the most it can only be a consensual relationship and since the husband of the defacto complainant saw the messages between them, in order to wriggle out of the difficult situation, the defacto complainant raised the allegation of rape against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, even though the incident as alleged had not occurred, still, at the most it can only be a consensual relationship and since the husband of the defacto complainant saw the messages between them, in order to wriggle out of the difficult situation, the defacto complainant raised the allegation of rape against the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case is false and the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions and fully co-operate with the investigation. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the chat history stated to have occurred between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is a matter for verification and without custodial interrogation, the materials cannot be unearthed. 6. By order dated 08.04.2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions regarding Annexure A1 to Annexure A3. A reading of the F.I. statement of the defacto complainant indicates that she had acquaintance with the petitioner for a long time and that he had studied as a junior to her in the college. It is also stated that they were good friends for long and that he had even come home for a friendly chat with her. However, according to the defacto complainant on 19.11.2024 around 2.30 P.M., when he came to her house where she was alone and when she went into the bed room, he caught her from behind and thereafter sexually assaulted her. She had not informed this to her husband or anyone due to fear. It was only on 27.02.2025, i.e., after a period of four months, that she filed the complaint. 7. On the same day, i.e., 27.02.2025, the defacto complainant filed two other F.I.R's against two other persons also, one of which involves an allegation of rape on 20.07.2022 and another case of sexual assault as well. 8. The defacto complainant is a married lady with a child. In her complaint itself she has stated that she and the petitioner had been acquainted with each other for some time from their college days. The chat history, as evident from Annexure A7 to Annexure A9, indicates that they were on friendly terms even after 19.11.2024 and had even contemplated marrying each other. 9. Rape is a serious offence. In her complaint itself she has stated that she and the petitioner had been acquainted with each other for some time from their college days. The chat history, as evident from Annexure A7 to Annexure A9, indicates that they were on friendly terms even after 19.11.2024 and had even contemplated marrying each other. 9. Rape is a serious offence. It has been held to be a crime not only against the woman involved but even against the whole society. Rape has the effect of degrading and humiliating the survivor. However, of late there is a growing tendency to make allegations of rape even when the relationship was consensual. The court considering an application for pre-arrest bail is burdened with the task of identifying whether the allegations do require custodial interrogation or not. Most often, the Court must go by the statement of the prosecutrix. However there would be few instances where the allegations would not inspire confidence in the Court due to various circumstances arising from the facts narrated. In such instances, subjecting the accused to custodial interrogation would cause serious prejudice and a lifelong blot. Notwithstanding the above, the interest of the investigating agency and that of the victim has to be taken care of. A balance has to be struck in such cases. 10. On an appreciation of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case of a probable consensual relationship. In such an instance, directing a custodial interrogation would cause prejudice. 11. The decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [ (1980) 2 SCC 565 ].and that in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [ (2020) 5 SCC 1 ], have identified a way out in situations of this nature. In those decisions, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had observed that limited custody would, in appropriate cases, facilitate the requirements of the investigating authority. 12. Taking note of the nature of the allegations in the instant case, this Court is of the view that, despite petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence of rape, the circumstances indicate that limited custody would suffice the purposes of investigation especially in the light of the allegations in the F.I. statement and Annexure A7 to Annexure A9 produced by the petitioner. In the result, this Bail Application is allowed. In the result, this Bail Application is allowed. (a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.05.2025, 29.05.2025 and, if required, on 30.05.2025 from morning 9 A.M till 5 P.M (b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer. (c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation. (d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim. (e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail. (f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, or for modification or deletion of any of the conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.