The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases involving bail applications for offenses under IPC, the court considers factors such as the delay in filing the FIR, evidence of force or coercion, and the substantiation of claims of threatening or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR no. 366/2022, registered at PS Harsh Vihar on 08.07.2022, for offences under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

2. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the chargesheet and status report dated 09.12.2022, authored by Inspector Balram Singh, SHO, PS Harsh Vihar, is that on 08.07.2022, the prosecutrix filed a written complaint against the present applicant alleging that on 10.02.2021, Manish, the present applicant, who was her friend and neighbour, took her to an OYO Hotel in Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and made physical relation with her, without her consent. It was further alleged that when the prosecutrix protested against the said act, the present applicant assured her that he would get married to her. Thereafter, allegedly the applicant used to often go to the house of the prosecutrix, when she was alone, and made physical relation with her on the false pretext of marrying her. However, he has now refused to marry her. The said complaint culminated into registration of the present FIR bearing no. 366/2022, for the offences under Sections 376/506 of the IPC. After that, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at GTB Hospital.

3. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the CrPC. In the said statement, she reiterated the above stated facts and further alleged that she was in a relationship with the present applicant and the applicant used to threaten her to make her photographs and videos viral. He allegedly also gave the photographs to her. Thereafter, on 10.07.2022, the applicant was arrested and sent to judicial custody.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Shri Dev Chaudhary, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, for offences under Sections 376/506 of the IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the present FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of more than one year from the date of incident, which has not been explained by the prosecutrix. Such inordinate delay creates a cloud of suspicion about the allegations made by the prosecutrix.

6. He further asserts that the photographs recovered during the investigation clearly show that the prosecutrix and the applicant were well-acquainted with each other and used to meet each other often. It is further submitted that no evidence has been put on record, including any document, which would signify force or coercion on the part of the applicant. It is also urged that it has been admitted by the prosecutrix herself that she was in a relationship with the applicant and they were in contact with each other for more than an year. During investigation as well it has been revealed that the prosecutrix and applicant used to frequently communicate with each other.

7. The learned counsel further submits that the present applicant has been in custody since 10.07.2022 and no useful purpose will be served by keeping him in custody any further. It is urged that the applicant is a young man of 25 years of age, who has deep roots in society and is the main bread earner of his family, therefore, it is prayed that in such circumstances, he may be granted bail. He has relied upon the following judgments in furtherance of his contentions:

i. Brijesh Kumar v. State, 2002 Crl. L.J. 3873 (Delhi)

ii. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, AIR 2012 SC 830

iii. State of Rajasthan v. Balchan @ Balia, AIR 1977 SC 2447

8. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the court notice issued to the prosecutrix/respondent no. 2, vide order dated 28.10.2022. However, despite the said notice being served, neither the respondent nor her authorised representative/counsel appeared on the next two subs