Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J. - (1.)By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11993007210371 of 2021, registered with 'B' Division Police Station, Gandhidham, District: Kachchh (East) for the offences punishable under Ss. 376D, 498A, 379A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Ss. 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.)Heard learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent - State.
(3.)The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhidham - Kachchh has rejected the application filed by the present applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is charged with the aforesaid offences, however, the ingredients of the said offences are not satisfied inasmuch as, merely because of the family/matrimonial disputes between the original complainant and the in-laws, the present applicant is implicated. It is further submitted that for the incident which had occurred in January 2021, the FIR in question is lodged in April 2021 i.e. almost after a delay of more than 3 months, for which, no justifiable explanation is coming forward on record. It is further submitted that the present complaint is nothing but a counterblast to the complaint filed against the present complainant as on the same day i.e. on 16/4/2021, after the complainant was released on bail in that complaint, present complaint has been filed. The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that even otherwise, the present applicant and the complainant are the husband and wife and hence, even if the offence of rape is believed, the offence punishable under Sec. 376D of the IPC may not come into play as it falls under the exception to Sec. 375 IPC.
3.1. The learned advocate for the applicant, with all vehemence at his command, submitted that as per the complainant's version, she was taken to the flat of co-accused Sandeep Kumar, however, as per the documents collected by the investigating agency, the complainant was found to be at Hotel Fern during the period between 1/1/2021 and 2/1/2021.

3.2. The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the co-accused have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court and SLP thereagainst has been dismissed by the Apex Court. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is urged that the present application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3.3. The learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation as well as during trial and will not flee from justice.

3.4. The learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for remand. It is further submitted that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant - accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. The learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.