The delay in filing the FIR and inconsistencies in the complaint can be considered in granting anticipatory bail.

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed seeking Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.274/2016 registered by Bommanahalli Police Station against the petitioner and his father for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 & 420 IPC.

2. Heard Shri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri. B. Vishweshwaraiah, learned HCGP for the respondent State and perused the records.

3. Shri. M.T. Nanaiah, arguing in support of this petition submitted that a plain reading of the complaint would disclose that it is wholly concocted. He pointed out that the offence, which is alleged to have taken place between 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2016, FIR is lodged on 19.6.2016. He further submitted that the allegations contained in the complaint would, at best lead to an inference that the Complainant and the petitioner may have had some kind of relationship. Complainant is aged 31 years and with such inconsistencies in the complaint, the prosecution has attempted to implicate petitioner in a false case. With these submissions, he prays for grant of Anticipatory Bail.

4. Per contra, Sri.B.Vishweshwaraiah, learned HCGP opposes the bail petition.

5. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent/State and perused the records.

6. Complaint is admittedly lodged on 19.6.2016 alleging that the petitioner had taken Complainant to a Hotel on 2.10.2015, drugged her and committed the offence. In the following paragraph, it is stated that in May 2014, she was traveling to Malaysia, at which point of time, petitioner had promised that he would marry her and they were engaged during April 2014. In the subsequent paragraphs, Complainant had alleged infliction of torture by petitioner’s father also.

7. It gives the impression that the petitioner and Complainant may have agreed to get married, but subsequently they have fallen apart. Considering all the circumstances of the case, particularly, the delay of about 8 months in registering the FIR, in my considered view, petition merits consideration and the petitioner shall be entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer of the jurisdictional police station on or before 20.2.2017 and in such an event, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) He shall mark his attendance at the 2nd Jurisdictional Police Station on and 4th Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till filing of charge sheet;

(iii) He shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for conducting investigation and shall appear before investigating officer as and when called for;

(iv) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner;

(v) He shall not involve in any criminal activities; and

(vi) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

Petition is allowed.