The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in lodging the FIR may not be fatal to the prosecution if satisfactorily explained, and that the grounds for granting and cancelling bail, along with the larger interest of the public or the state, must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant at the admission stage before notice to the respondents.

2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.”) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, by its order dated 08.06.2022, in Criminal Bail Application No. 177 of 2022.

3. The applicant is the victim and wife of respondent no.1. The hearing was granted to her before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has heard the present victim and the learned APP at length and recorded the submissions made by the respective parties.

4. The applicant has raised objections that the learned Sessions Judge did not consider that she was a minor when kidnapped and raped. She was in the custody of the respondents; therefore, she could not immediately lodge the report against them. The respondents have terror in the locality. The learned Sessions Court did not direct the Investigating Officer to produce the materials like a letter written in the handwriting of her father. The learned sessions judge has given unnecessary weightage to the delay, ignoring that she was a minor. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously observed that the Investigating Officer, as well as the first informant, did not point out any such crime details, and on this ground wrong conclusion has been drawn. The Court has also brushed aside the gravity of the offence. At the time of hearing the bail application, she had no details against the respondents. She has also levelled allegations against the Investigating Officer that he did not take care to submit the complete material before the Court. The learned Judge has not properly considered the aspects of the rape and kidnapping case. In short, mainly, she has the objection that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the material before it. Hence, the bail granted to the respondents is liable to be cancelled.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the serious allegations of committing rape by applicant No.1 and taking photographs of their sex by brothers of respondent no.1/accused have not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. The educational documents and ornaments lying in the custody of the respondents/accused were to be recovered from the accused. At least for that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the respondent/accused was necessary. Referring to the reply filed by the learned APP, he pointed out that the ground was raised before the learned Sessions Judge that about 11 tolas of golden ornaments and educational testimonials of the applicant/victim are required to be recovered from the respondents.

6. To prove the antecedent against the respondents/accused, he relied on order of seizure of the property of respondent No.1/accused by the Tahsildar, Newasa. He also argued that the custodial interrogation of the respondents was essential to recovering the dowry amount of Rs.50,000/- which was transferred from the account of Mr. Suresh Jadhav. This material aspect has also been brushed aside by the learned Sessions Court. He has further argued that the purpose of enacting the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) is to protect children from sexual assault and sexual harassment. The victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, the matter should have been viewed from the object of the POCSO Act. Whatsoever the delay caused in lodging the FIR, it is subject to explanation during the trial. For all these reasons, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/accused is liable to be cancelled.

7. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Puran, Shekhar and another Vs. Rambilas and others, AIR 2001 SC 2023, has laid down the law on the cancellation of bail. It has been observed that the High Court can exercise the powers to cancel the bail o