Anant Bijay Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 85 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1561 of 2016, registered under Sections 376, 354, 420, 323, 506 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 1011 of 2016, filed by prosecutrix (A) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was referred under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for institution of the case alleging that the prosecutrix and petitioner were in live-in-relationship and they were known to each other and the petitioner assured her that he will marry with prosecutrix in April, 2011, thereafter they entered into physical relationship and in between prosecutrix became pregnant and petitioner forced her to consult a lady doctor and thereafter she contacted Dr. Mrs. Ragini Singh where her pregnancy was terminated on 15.03.2016. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not marry the prosecutrix and when she had gone outside Jamshedpur, the petitioner married with another girl and on the basis of aforesaid allegation, the instant case was instituted.
(2.) Pursuant to order of this Court, both the parties appeared on 13.02.2016 and framing of rehabilitation scheme for the victim was explored, but it failed and the matter was directed to be heard on merits.
(3.) Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no case under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is made out inasmuch as there was live-in-relation between them and she is permanent employee of M/s Tata Steel in its Mills and Utilities Mechanical Maintenance Department, and at best offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is made out. So, petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.;