The totality of circumstances should be considered before granting or denying anticipatory bail, and stringent conditions may be imposed to address concerns of influencing the victim.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 644/2021 under Section 376 IPC registered at P.S. Burari.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 02.08.2021, the present FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of victim wherein she alleged that she interacted with the petitioner through Facebook and thereafter both of them became friends. They both started talking with each other on phone. During conversation victim disclosed her job requirement to the petitioner, on which petitioner assured to get her meeting scheduled with some of his known. On 11.07.2021, petitioner asked victim to meet her at Burari. Petitioner sent his current location and asked the victim to come at Burari More. When victim reached there, petitioner told that meeting is not possible at roadside and he took room in the OYO Rooms/Guest House at Burari More. Victim went inside the room with petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner made sexual relations with the victim against her will and he ran away from there.

3. Victim made PCR call. She reached at PS Burari and told that petitioner would meet her on 16.07.2021 and she did not want legal action at that time. When petitioner did not meet her on 16.07.2021, victim gave her statement on which the present case was registered.

4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State, assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and also perused the Status Report filed by the State.

5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the present case is motivated. He further submitted that there is a delay of 21 days in the registration of the FIR which is unexplained. He further submitted that the victim is a mature girl aged around 21 years and on the other hand, the petitioner is only 18 years old student and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that it is highly improbable that an 18 years old student who is not even a resident of Delhi would promise to offer job to a 21 years old Delhi based girl.

6. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made by the victim that petitioner made sexual relations with her against her will does not seem to be probable because victim did not shout or call for help at the time of commission of offence, despite the incident taking place in a public place. He further submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, so the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there were exchange of messages between the victim and the petitioner and phone calls were also made between them even after the date of the alleged incident, which shows that they were having cordial relations and only for the reasons best known to the victim she has falsely implicated the petitioner.

7. He further submitted that victim had not undergone any medical examination on the date of the incident i.e. 11.07.2021 and the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 02.08.2021 and there is no reasonable explanation by the victim for this delay. He further submitted that the petitioner has deep roots in the society and there are no chances of him fleeing form justice. He further submitted that no inducement of promise of job was ever given by the petitioner to the victim and the said allegation is absolutely false.

8. On the other hand, while opposing the bail application, Ld. APP for the State has argued on the lines of the Status Report filed by the State. It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State, assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the statement of the victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on