accused that he would marry her has no legal efficacy and cannot be the basis to contend that her consent for sexual relationship was obtained on the basis of misconception of fact as envisaged in Sec.90 of the IPC, etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the light of these aspects, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that this Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the petitioner is likely to intimidate or influence the witnesses, including the lady de facto complainant, if he is left upon bail. After hearing both sides and after evaluating the facts and circumstance of this case in the light of the legal principles which was laid down the fine and substantial distinction between rape as per Sec.376 of the IPC and consensual sexual relationship as well as the admitted allegations in the private criminal complaint as well as Annexure.1 statement. This Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. However, in order to alleviate the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may influence the witness, etc., it is ordered that the petitioner shall not reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the police station, where the
