THE HON’BEL SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRAKUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2238 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim is aged about 22 years, and even if the prosecution allegations are accepted as true, it appears that the victim is a consented party for the sexual intercourse. It is also submitted that no date and time of the alleged offence is given by the victim in her complaint. It is further submitted that only after the mother of the victim gave a report, a case in Crime No.20 of 2010 of Sarpavaram Police Station of Kakinada rural Mandal, for the offences punishable under Setions 376, 420, 342 and 506 IPC, was registered and subsequently, the same was transferred to Chilakalguda Police Station on the point of jurisdiction and registered as Crime No.69 of 2010. However, as seen from the contents of the complaint given by the victim, she is a computer graduate and that the petitioner, who is her relative, made her to believe that he would provide her a job. Initially the petitioner admitted the victim in a women’s hostel and after some days he had taken the victim to his room and raped her. Though it is a fact that no report was given by the victim immediately after the alleged incident, having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, the petitioner may surrender before the concerned Court and seek regular bail. Subject to the observations made supra, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ (B. CHANDRAKUMAR, J.) 1st April, 2010 Js.