Anticipatory bail is maintainable despite allegations of unnatural sex in matrimonial disputes involving delayed complaints.

The Petitioner, a university professor, and the Complainant, also an academician, were in a romantic relationship before marrying in 2006.

The marriage resulted in two children, but eventually deteriorated due to marital discord and multiple matrimonial litigations.

In 2024, nearly 18 years after the marriage, the Complainant lodged a complaint alleging dowry demands and persistent forced unnatural sex since 2006, leading to the registration of FIR No. 18/2025 under Section 498A/34 of the IPC.

The Petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest on 29.04.2025, which continued until the final hearing.

The State did not object to the bail application, but the Complainant opposed it citing the gravity of the sexual misconduct.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations and the delay in reporting the alleged offenses.

2. Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in a matrimonial dispute where allegations of sexual misconduct are raised long after the alleged commencement of the acts.

The court primarily considered Section 498A/34 of the IPC regarding matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment.

It relied on the principles governing arrest in matrimonial disputes established in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2014) 8 SCC 273, which cautions against automatic arrests in cases under Section 498A.

The court also emphasized the standard criteria for bail: the nature of accusations, the risk of the accused fleeing justice (flight risk), and whether the accused has cooperated with the investigation.

The court reasoned that while allegations of unnatural sex are serious, the Complainant’s claim that such acts continued from 2006 until a first complaint in 2024 raised questions regarding the necessity of immediate incarceration.

It noted that the parties had previously attempted mediation, indicating a possibility of settlement.

The court observed a trend where sexual misconduct allegations are sometimes added to matrimonial complaints to circumvent the restrictive arrest guidelines in *Arnesh Kumar*, though it cautioned that each case must be tested on its own facts.

Since the Petitioner is a well-placed academician with no flight risk and had not misused his interim liberty, the court found that curtailing his liberty by way of custodial interrogation was not warranted in the specific matrix of this case.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.

The Petitioner was further directed to join the investigation as and when required in writing by the Investigating Officer.