Anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances; the seriousness of the allegations and need for investigation justifies denial of bail.

ORDER :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS S ’) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.10 of 2025 of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 62 read with 64(1), 74, 75(2), 333 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’) and Section 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 04.01.2025 at approximately 2.30 p.m., the accused visited the complainant’s residence and handed Rs.5,000/- to the victim. The victim then called her father to enquire whether she should accept the cash. In response, the complainant instructed her, through phone, not to allow the accused to enter their house in his absence. At approximately 2.45 p.m., the accused forcibly entered the complainant’s house, beat the victim girl and pushed her down, bolted the door from inside and due to fear, she raised hue and cries. The accused closed her mouth, beat her cheeks and forcibly attempted to commit rape on her. On hearing her cries, the neighbours rushed there, on that the accused escaped from there.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present crime due to serious disputes with the defacto complainant. Moreover, the alleged incident, which is said to have occurred on 04.01.2025 and was reported on 07.01.2025, with a delay of 3 days. Additionally, there is no material evidence to establish that the Petitioner attempted to commit rape on the victim. The Petitioner is willing to furnish suitable security and comply with any conditions set by the Court and therefore prays for the grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions, which are on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the Report.

6. Perused the report lodged by the Defacto Complainant and also the copy of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim.

7. As seen from the record, the victim girl is a minor girl of 17 years of age. According to the prosecution, on 04.01.2025 at approximately 2.45 p.m., the accused attempted to commit rape on the victim girl.

8. It is trite that among other considerations which the Court has to take into account in deciding whether bail should be granted in a non-bailable offence is the nature and gravity of the offence.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that the delay in filing the report is detrimental to the case. According to the Prosecution’s version, the alleged incident took place on 04.01.2025. It appears that the delay in reporting occurred because the Defacto Complainant, who is the father of the victim, was unavailable. He returned from Ahmedabad on 06.01.2025, and the report was subsequently lodged on 07.01.2025. It cannot, therefore, be asserted that the Defacto Complainant has failed to provide any explanation for the delay. At this juncture, in the absence of any cogent material, it is difficult to accept the Petitioner's contention that the delay was the result of deliberations and legal consultations.

10. Indeed, pre-trial imprisonment cannot be used as a substitute for the punishment without the scrutiny of the evidence by the Trial Court, but, at the same tim