Anticipatory bail in grave sexual offence allegations rejected after victim statement and investigation material were found sufficient at bail stage.

Anticipatory bail was declined where allegations of rape, blackmail and repeated sexual assault were treated as grave, supported by the victim's statement under section 164 CrPC and claims that the incident was videographed and threats were issued. The defence reliance on call detail records was not accepted at the bail stage because their authenticity and evidentiary value could not be examined minutely in such proceedings. On that basis, the court found that anticipatory bail was not made out and rejected the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected during investigation.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of rape, blackmail, and repeated sexual assault, supported by the victim's statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The asserted defence based on call detail records was not accepted at the bail stage, since the authenticity and evidentiary value of such material could not be minutely examined in a bail proceeding. The allegations were treated as grave, including the claim that the incident was videographed and that threats were extended to the victim.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not made out and the application was rejected.

---