ORDER

Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel, who represent the informant/victim girl as also Mrs. Usha Kumari No. 1, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted and is granted to delete paragraph Nos. 5, 24 and 26 of the anticipatory bail application in course of the day.

3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2021 for the offence registered under Sections 6/9 (I) (c) of the POCSO Act, Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 376 (2) (a) (iii), 376 (2) (b), 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution story, the informant who is brother of the victim girl ‘X’ complained that his sister told her that during 2017 ‘Dussehra’ festival, while the petitioner was posted as Dy. S.P., Head Quarter, Gaya forcibly committed rape upon her in his Government quarter in the night where she had stayed for a night prior to coming to Patna to serve as a Maid to the petitioner’s wife. The further allegation is that the date of birth of his sister being 16.05.2003, she was minor at the time of occurrence, she narrated her ordeal to her brother followed by the present FIR in 2021.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR inasmuch as the alleged occurrence took place in 2017, the FIR was lodged in 2021 and the delay has not been explained.

6. The further submission is that contrary to the claim that she was a minor and her date of birth is 16.05.2003, the Doctor in another FIR lodged by her in 2016 had assessed her age to be seventeen and half years meaning thereby she was more than 18 years in 2017. Thus, POCSO Act is not attracted in the present case.

7. Learned Senior counsel relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2021. He further relied on another order by a Bench of this Court in Usha Mishra vs. State of Bihar & Anrs. reported in 2007(3) PLJR 747 and further one more order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav in Cr. Misc. No. 28750 of 2022.

8. Since processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been issued against the petitioner, it is submitted that he needs protection from this Court. The last submission of the learned Senior counsel is that the petitioner is a responsible Police Officer, he will abide by the terms and conditions and in that backdrop, he deserves the relief, he has sought for.

9. Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the victim girl/informant on the other hand submitted that the victim girl was engaged as a maid servant and was to visit Patna to serve the petitioner’s wife. For that purpose, her brother took her to the Government Quarter of the petitioner, left her in his campus so that next morning she can be shifted from Gaya to Patna. However, the petitioner despite being a D.S.P. rank officer and was under oath to protect every single individual as a Police Officer, took this opportunity of her being alone in the quarter and raped the victim girl who was minor at that time.

10. He took this Court to paragraph-35 of the case diary to show that the victim girl fully supported the prosecution story and stated that while she was sleeping in the night, the petitioner forcefully opened the door and thereafter committed rape and further threatened that if she raises alarm, she will be killed. Next day, she came to Patna along with his brother, was continuously crying and when the wife of the petitioner asked her the reason for crying, She narrated everything to her.

11. Further, the wife of the petitioner upon knowledge of the alleged occurrence, called the Police Officer, Meera Kumari posted at Gaya Women Police Station informing her that the girl has been raped by her husband. Thereafter, the lady Police Officer instead of taking note of her