The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the consensual nature of the relationship, the delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of evidence in assessing the credibility of the allegations of sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the present bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 656/2020 registered U/s 376/506 IPC at Police station Ranhola, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner as per the complaint of the victim/complaint are that she met one Rajiv more than 6 years ago when she alongwith her husband mortgaged property bearing No. A-154 Sainik Enclave Gali No. 4 for a total amount of Rs. 4 lakh. According to the complainant, she met one Sanjeev in the office of Rajeev. Later on 29 September 2016, she received a call from Sanjay (present petitioner) who asked her to meet him one time by saying he had taken the documents of her property from Sanjeev. She went to meet Sanjay, who gave her a glass of cold drink and after drinking the same she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness after about 2 hours, petitioner showed her nude photos and videos. Then petitioner blackmailed her to have physical relations with him. After that petitioner called her to his home and forced her to make physical relations with him by threatening her and showing her nude photos and videos. According to the complainant, he continued this till May, 2019. When the complainant / victim demanded her property papers, petitioner replied that the papers are now with one Satish who is the financer and now she would have to make him happy, only then she will get the papers. When the complainant/victim refused the same stating that she would make a complaint against the petitioner to the police then, petitioner threatened her to kill. According to the complainant/victim last time petitioner had made physical relation with her on 6 December 2019. It is further alleged by the victim/complainant that she told petitioner that he has ruined her life and asked him to keep her but the petitioner was not ready to keep her with him. On the basis of above allegations made by the complainant/victim, the present case was registered.

3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State, Ld. counel for the victim/complainant and also perused the status report filed by the state.

4. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in J.C. since 23.06.2020. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a married woman when she first met the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and it was a consensual relationship which is evident from the fact that respondent No. 2 has got the name of the petitioner permanently tattooed on her forearm which shows her love towards the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No. 2 had sent photograph of the tattoo to the petitioner via email on two occasions dated 13.12.2019 and 22.01.2020. He further submitted that respondent No. 2 has clicked selfies with the petitioner, exchanged garlands with him, attended festivities and celebrated functions which is evident from the photographs filed on record. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has even sent friend request to the petitioner on face book. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was in love with the petitioner and when she failed to convince the petitioner to maintain ties then she got the present case registered. He further submitted that there is a delay of about 7 months in the registration of the FIR. He further submitted that the house in which the prosecutrix claimed to have been kept by the petitioner was in fact let out to the prosecutrix. He further submitted that during this long period of their association of around 4 years, she never made complaint to her husband.

5. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued on the lines of the status report.

6. In the present case, according to the prosecutrix she met the petitioner for the first time on 29.09.2016. At