ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11213006240233 of 2024 registered with Bhayavadar Police Station, Rajkot Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(N) , 313 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short “ IPC ”). 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that present applicant is innocent and he has renounced worldly pleasure and he is worshiping God and is looking after the affairs of Gurukul. The complaint is filed at the instance of victim wherein she has stated that as she become Nun of Swaminarayana Sect, she came alongwith her parents and willingly executed the affidavit and was left at the Gurukul. It is alleged that present applicant under the false pretext of marriage developed sexual relations with the victim by assuring the victim that the applicant and victim both have to reside as monk and nun and under such false pretext, the applicant committed repeated offence of rape for five times against the will and wish of the victim. In this regard the complaint is filed. Further, all the allegations that are leveled are far from truth. The complaint is filed belatedly and even if we accept the allegations as it is, then also the victim was major and by her consent the alleged relationship was established and therefore, nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant. The applicant is not having any past antecedent and co-accused are arrested and released on regular bail. 3.1 Even, perusing the whatsapp chat between the applicant and the victim, it appears that there was consensual relationship and since 04.06.2022, the victim has left the Khirsara Gurukul and she stayed at different places namely Botad, Bhavnagar, Rajkot, Halvad and Bhuj Girls Hostel and hence the entire story is cooked up based on absurd version and thereafter, belatedly after a delay of two years the complaint is filed with ulterior motive. Further, the charge-sheet is filed against co-accused and his name is shown in column No.2 of the charge-sheet. Further, the charge-sheet is filed against co-accused and his name is shown in column No.2 of the charge-sheet. The applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation and hence, there being nothing to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant, he has requested to allow the present application as there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. 4. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that present applicant has lured the victim and against her will, under the false pretext of marriage, the applicant has developed relationship and then committed repeated rape and due to such act of applicant, the victim even became pregnant and at that time in abetment of co-accused the fetus was aborted against the will and wish of the victim by the present applicant and co-accused No.2, who is also a Saint and one Hostel Rector had also abetted the offence and threatened the victim / complainant to remain silent. Under the false pretext of marriage and against the will and wish of the complainant, time and again sexual assault being made on the complainant and the applicant though being Saint indulged in such immoral activity and considering the statement recorded of the victim prima facie evidence collected from mobile phone i.e. chats with the applicant is also found which clearly shows involvement of the present applicant and therefore, to recover the said mobile instrument, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The offence is registered in June, 2024 and since then the applicant is on run till date and he is out of the country and even, warrant under Section 72 of the CrPC also came to be issued and thereafter, Look Out Circular is also issued. Even, considering the affidavit of the applicant which is sworn at New York, it clearly reveals that the applicant is on run and is out of the country. In such serious offence as the applicant has used his muscle power, money power and influence to threaten the complainant to remain silent, delay was caused in filing the FIR as the complainant had left the premises after collecting the material. In such serious offence, delay is not a ground to overboard the case of prosecution. In such serious offence as the applicant has used his muscle power, money power and influence to threaten the complainant to remain silent, delay was caused in filing the FIR as the complainant had left the premises after collecting the material. In such serious offence, delay is not a ground to overboard the case of prosecution. Even, in the complaint itself, explanation is given about the delay and fact about the threat administered to the complainant by co-accused is also mentioned and reasonable explanation is given for the delay. 4.1 Further, statement of the complainant under Section 164 of the CrPC (section 183 of the BNSS ) is recorded. Sufficient evidence is collect which suggests that at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3, they have abetted the offence and sufficient evidence and material is collected during the investigation which points out the involvement of the present applicant in the offence. Considering the fact that offence is against woman and State, he has requested that custodial interrogation is required and hence, has requested not to exercise the discretion in favor of the applicant and has requested to dismiss the present application. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by both sides. It is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. 6. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. 6. From the investigation papers, it appears that present applicant is facing charges for the offences under Sections 376 (2)(N) , 313 and 114 of the IPC . Present applicant is a Saint of Swaminarayan Sect and alongwith co-accused he is running the Swaminarayan Gurukul at Khirsara village. Perusing the complaint and investigation papers and statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC (section 183 of the BNSS ), present applicant had sent a friend request to the complainant on facebook as she was disciple of Swami Narayan sect which was accepted by the complainant and thereafter, the applicant started chatting with the complainant on whatsapp and then the applicant – accused called her at the Khirsara Gurukul for personal visit and in a guest house of the Gurukul, applicant – accused was present and he started molesting the complainant and when the victim refused to do so, applicant had stated that he is going to marry her in front of God and he has declared that she became his wife and both are husband and wife and will live together as Monk and Nun and then the applicant developed physical relationship and sexually exploited the complainant. Thereafter, the applicant forced the complainant to take ordination of Swami Narayan Sect and called the parents of the applicant and by taking consent of parents, without any authority, under the pretext of ordination, complainant was declared as “Sankhya Yogini” and due to such sexual relationship the complainant conceived and accused No.3 abetted for abortion of the said fetus and thereafter also, the complainant was threatened by the co-accused and the present applicant to remain silent. 7. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that Hinduism, one of the oldest spiritual traditions has produced a rich legacy of Saints and enlightened personalities who have shaped its cultural and religious fabric and have inspired generations to lead lives of spirituality, selflessness and devotion. The saints of Hinduism have left an indelible mark on the spiritual landscape. Saints have a long-lasting contribution to our society. Adultery is considered a grave sin in Hinduism. Any sexual activity outside the wedlock both premarital and extramarital are forbidden. The saints of Hinduism have left an indelible mark on the spiritual landscape. Saints have a long-lasting contribution to our society. Adultery is considered a grave sin in Hinduism. Any sexual activity outside the wedlock both premarital and extramarital are forbidden. Herein, though applicant has renounced the society and worldly pleasures, he has indulged in such an act though the Swaminarayan tradition prohibits a Monk from even seeing the face of a woman which aligns with broader Hindu Dharmashastras that forbids adultery. Herein, the applicant came in contact with the victim and under the pretext of unauthorized ordination to her though he does not have any authority for the same as the said authority to ordinate any one is bestowed upon Acharya Shree, Vadtal, the applicant under the pretext of continuing life with the victim as her husband has sexually exploited her in Gurukul due to which many students of Gurukul are constrained to leave their study in the Gurukul in the midst of their academic year. 8. Under the pretext of false marriage, the present applicant though a Monk developed physical relation not only once but repeatedly and therefore, has committed an offence under Section 376 (2)(N) of the IPC . Merely because complainant / victim is major is not a ground to allow the present application as the present applicant is actively involved in the offence by making the complainant misunderstood that applicant is a monk and she would have to live with the applicant as his wife and under such misconception of marriage, sexual act is committed which is nothing but rape in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [ (2019) 9 SCC 608 ] as applicant himself was a monk and hence, question does not arise to have worldly pleasure and even he should not indulge in such activity under the pretext of religious activity and under the dominance over his disciples. 8.1 Perusing the investigation papers and whatsapp chat and other material, prima facie involvement of the present applicant including in abortion is revealed. Hence, prima facie, offence against woman and State is made out considering the larger interest of justice and mobile phone through which whatsapp chats were done between the applicant and the complainant is yet to be recovered and for that custodial interrogation is required. Hence, prima facie, offence against woman and State is made out considering the larger interest of justice and mobile phone through which whatsapp chats were done between the applicant and the complainant is yet to be recovered and for that custodial interrogation is required. The offence of committing repeated rapes on the same woman is punishable under Section 376 (2)(N) of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of a term not less than 10 years and may extend to life imprisonment and so far as offence under Section 313 of the IPC is concerned, it is punishable with rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and may extend upto life sentence. 8.2 Further, proceedings under Sections 72, 82 and 83 of the CrPC also initiated against the present applicant and even Look Out Circular is issued against the applicant. Even, the affidavit in support of present application is sworn by the applicant at New York which clearly reveals that the applicant is on run from the date of registration of FIR and hence, applicant in present case is an absconder and hence, present application is required to be dismissed on that ground alone. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784 ; Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730; Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC 282; Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 and Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 , no case is made out to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. This Court is conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 438 and concept of the personal liberty. But herein, this court is of considered view that, the present offence is not just an offence against any individual rather is against the larger societal interest and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest. But herein, this court is of considered view that, the present offence is not just an offence against any individual rather is against the larger societal interest and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes in which the accused may provide information, during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant information. In such circumstances, when investigation is at preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted, it may hamper the investigation and to collect the material and more information, and find out the involvements of another person custodial interrogation is also necessary. Therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187 (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 , custodial interrogation is required. 10. It is pertinent to note that powers under Section 482 of the BNSS (section 438 of the CrPC) are somewhat extraordinary in character and should be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person may be falsely implicated and present accused of offence is not likely to otherwise misuse the liberty. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ram Krishan Balotiya reported in (1995) 3 SCC 221 . 11. Considering the aforesaid all facts as also keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and going through the material very carefully available against the accused it appears that herein, no complaint has been made with a view to humiliate or tarnish the image of the present applicant. Even in the case of Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another , reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 , Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold: "Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty." 11.1 Further, considering the allegation made in the FIR, for the qualitative investigation, presence of applicant is required and custodial interrogation is necessary. Thus, prima facie it appears that accused has played active role and qualitative investigation is necessary in the matter. 11.2 This Court has also kept in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs. The State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein para 19 reads as under : “19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 11.3 The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out. It is needless to say that order under Section 438 of CrPC (section 482 of the BNSS ) is not a passport to the commission of offence nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. 12. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out. It is needless to say that order under Section 438 of CrPC (section 482 of the BNSS ) is not a passport to the commission of offence nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. 12. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, as applicant is actively involved in the offence, I have absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order of anticipatory bail before he is interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing the truth. 13. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature.