Delay in lodging a complaint and inconsistencies in evidence can raise doubts about the veracity of allegations.

JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Jhajha PS Case No. 236 of 2019 dated 15.08.2019, instituted under Sections 323, 354(B), 307, 376, 506, 509, 366, 313 and 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had established physical relationship with the informant in the year 2012 and even after getting a job in the BSF in the year 2013, he had maintained the relationship and had promised to marry her and in the year 2018, they had cohabited and when the informant had conceived, she was made to abort and thereafter when she had gone to the house of the petitioner, initially she was told to keep quiet, but later, she was abused, threatened and assaulted and was told that she should forget about the whole thing and they would get the petitioner married somewhere else.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after being employed in the BSF in the year 2013, he used to come to his village only after 2-3 years and there was no occasion to be in touch with the informant. It was submitted that it is also unbelievable that the informant would wait for six years to lodge the complaint when the petitioner admittedly was employed in BSF in the year 2013 itself, and the informant was aged 19 years and, thus, there was no legal impediment for marriage and raising no claim for marriage shows the falsity of the case. It was further submitted that the allegation that she went to the house of the petitioner in the year 2019 and was turned out is also false since the petitioner had already married someone else in the year 2017 and, thus, on 14.02.2019, there could not have been any occasion for the family members of the petitioner to tell the informant that she should forget about the petitioner and that they shall get the petitioner married somewhere else. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and because of this false case, his job is also at stake.

6. On 17.06.2021, the Court had asked learned APP to get the up-to-date legible photo copy of the entire case diary as also a report with regard to the stand taken by the petitioner that he had married another woman in the year 2017, from the Superintendent of Police, Jamui.

7. As the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Jamui indicated that no evidence was found of the petitioner having married in the year 2017, the Court had noted that such report was not based on verification done from the village of the said lady, a fresh report was required was directed to be submitted in terms of order dated 19.07.2021. The same has been submitted under letter dated 03.08.2021 of the Superintendent of Police, Jamui in which it has been stated that the Superintendent of Police, Jamui had himself visited the village of Ranju Kumari, whom the petitioner claims to have married, and on the basis of statement of independent witnesses and the neighbours, it has transpired that the petitioner had married her in the year 2017 and there is a girl child also born out of the wedlock. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner had also undertaken to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record certificate of the employee i.e., the BSF authorities with regard to petitioner having informed the BSF about his marriage in the year 2017 itself. He submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed. However, from perusal of the same, it appears that till date, there is no nomination of any person in the service record of petitioner before the BSF and it has been stated that the same is in process. Moreover, the date on which the form has been filled up is 12.08.2019 i.e., much after the so-called marr