Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and lack of corroborative evidence can be considered in granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Vide this petition, petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 496/2019, under Sections 363/376/342/506 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at police station Harsh Vihar, Delhi. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 02.10.2019.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the FIR, is that the complainant has alleged that a month prior to the incident, she had met the petitioner and became friendly with him. On 30.09.2019, he took her to a restaurant where they had chowmin and thereafter, they boarded a bus and when she asked as to where they were going, petitioner first said that they were just roaming about and after some time he asked her to remain quite or to face dire consequences. Thereafter, prosecutrix/complainant was taken to someone's house by the petitioner, where she met one uncle. Prosecutrix/complainant requested that Uncle to drop her to her house, to which he replied that she should first call her parents to get petitioner's parents released and thereafter only, she would be sent to her house. Prosecutrix/complainant has further alleged that at night, petitioner slept with her and did wrong acts with her and it was only in the morning at around 05:00 am that her parents and two uncles came there and rescued her and soon upon reaching Delhi, the FIR in question was got registered at the police station.

3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner and prosecutrix/complainant were having a love affair against the wishes of parents of prosecutrix/complainant and therefore, petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix/complainant at the instance of her parents.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the present petition and submitted that on 04.10.2019, the prosecutrix/complainant was produced before the court and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. , she had supported her complaint and further added that petitioner had made forceful relations with her. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submitted that at the time of alleged incident prosecutrix/complainant was a minor girl, aged 16 years and in the DNA examination report received from FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, it is opined that DNA could not be examined as semen could not be detected on the exhibits. He submitted that this does not belie the story of the prosecution and keeping in view that the prosecutrix/complainant was a minor and there are allegations of abduction and rape against the petitioner, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the version of prosecutrix/complainant before the doctor, who had conducted her medical examination, is totally different from the one made in the complaint. It is pointed out that before the doctor, prosecutrix/complainant had said that petitioner was living in her vicinity and he had offered her to go to mela near their house and thereafter, he offered her to go for another mela in Karkardooma and on the pretext of going there, they had boarded a bus, but petitioner took her to his grandmother's (nani) house and threatened her that he would harm her parents if she raised a voice. Both of them reached at petitioner's grandmother's (nani) house at around 07:00 p.m. on 03.09.2019, where she took bath and changed clothes given by petitioner's cousin sister and after having dinner at around 08:30 p.m., she went to sleep with petitioner's cousin sister. The prosecutrix/complainant further stated that in the morning at around 05:00 a.m. when she was woken up by her mother, she was topless. She specifically stated that she is not aware as to what happened to her in between 09:00 p.m. on 01.09.2019 till 05:00 a.m. of 02.10.2019.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further pointed out that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. re