The court denied anticipatory bail based on the nature of the accusations, the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicant's lack of cooperation with the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

[Amit Sharma, J.]

1. The present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR 1031/2022, under sections 346/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO') registered at PS Subhash Place.

2. Ms. 'M', on 15.09.2022, filed a complaint addressed to the SHO, PS Netaji Subhash Place wherein she alleged that in the year 2013, she left her native village in Jharkhand for Delhi in search of work. She met one Ajay Mandal who put her to work somewhere in Gurugram. It was alleged that she was repeatedly raped by the present applicant and his brother-in-law, Ajay Mandal. Later, she discovered that she was pregnant. She alleged that thereafter, Ajay Mandal beat her and got her admitted to a private hospital and she was told that her child was stillborn. In the year 2017, she returned to her native place. After the said complaint was received, the complainant's statement was recorded wherein she repeated the allegations made in the aforesaid complaint. It was further stated that when she told Ajay Mandal that she wished to return home, he threatened her to not tell anyone about the incidents that took place in Delhi and told her to never return to Delhi. She stated that after some time, she got in touch with an NGO, which helped her to register the above FIR.

3. Subsequently, because the complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, an FIR under Sections 376/506/323/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO was registered on 14.10.2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The present FIR was lodged after a long delay of 9 years after the time of the alleged incident. It was submitted that it is an admitted case that the complainant, at the time of her medical examination, refused to undergo an internal examination. It was further submitted that the allegations, as recorded in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his bail application are incorrect and that the role assigned to him is with respect to his brother-in-law, Ajay Mandal, who is presently in judicial custody. Learned counsel further submitted that he is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the same.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant and submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the complainant has supported the earlier version of her statement, as recorded in her complaint. It was submitted that the present applicant is evading arrest and process under Section 82 of the CrPC has been initiated against him.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. As far as the delay in lodging the present FIR is concerned, the same has been explained by the complainant in her complaint wherein she states that after she returned to her native village and gained a little maturity, she spoke with some people about the incident and decided to take action. Thereafter, she explains the delay stating that she got in touch with an NGO, which helped her to register the present FIR. A perusal of the FIR reflects that the allegations qua the present applicant are also in nature of forcible physical relations with the victim on many occasions alongwith his brother-in-law, Ajay Mandal. It is not the case of the applicant that the present FIR got registered due to some previous enmity between the parties or on account of some other extraneous reasons or that the accusations have been made with object of injuring or humiliating the applicant.

8. The present applicant is evading his arrest and not cooperating with the investigation. Process under Section 82 of the CrPC has also been initiated against him.

9. In view of the nature and grounds of the accusation, this Court is not inclin