The decision emphasized that no person is presumed guilty until proven otherwise, and considered the delay in filing the FIR and lack of concrete evidence against the applicant in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J.

1. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in FIR No.73/2021 dated 30.03.2021 under Section(s) 364/354A/354B/406/498A/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered with P.S. Naraina, New Delhi.

2. Notice was issued and the Status Report was filed thereafter.

3. The facts disclose that the allegations in the FIR pertain to alleged offences committed on 29/30.05.2020 upon the complainant at the matrimonial home where she was residing with her husband and in-laws. Thereafter, though the complainant left the matrimonial house on 03.06.2020, she only filed a complaint on 30.03.2021 and the original charge-sheet was filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for the offences punishable under Section(s) 354/354-A/354-B/406/498/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the applicant/ accused alongwith the other accused persons, was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was filed on 30.11.2022 wherein Section(s) 376/511 IPC were added.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that there has been a delay of more than nine months in filing of the afore-mentioned FIR. He, then, taking this Court through order disposal dated 17.12.2022 passed by learned ASJ disposing of an earlier bail application of the petitioner and other co-accused persons and through order dated 03.01.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CRL.M.C. 2050/2021 dealing with cancellation of bail application, submits that the issues concerning Section(s) 376/511 IPC were taken note of then as well. He also submits that filing of the supplementary charge-sheet is an after-thought as the offence under Section(s) 376/511 IPC were already alleged in the original complaint, in the FIR and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. qua which the preliminary chargesheet was filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. He further submits that in supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. it was noted by the I.O. that no concrete evidence was found against the applicant.

5. He, then, relying upon Harshita Gandhi vs State [2022 SCC OnLine Del 2683] wherein also the FIR was filed after a belated period and it was observed by this Court that though it might not be enough for quashing of the FIR but, bail could be granted in such situation, submits that in a similar situation bail was granted. He then drew the attention of this Court to the Status Report wherein it is stated that after service of the notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., the applicant had joined the investigation and also cooperated with it throughout.

6. Learned senior counsel for the complainant in rebuttal, drawing the attention of this Court to a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "XXXX vs State of Karnataka & Anr." Order dated 17.11.2022 [Criminal Appeal no.1981/2022], submits that considering the gravity of the offence involved and statement of the prosecutrix, applicant should not be granted bail. He also submits that the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on the very next day of her making the complaint, i.e., 31.03.2021, has categorically described the offence of Section 376 IPC in detail as committed upon her.

7. Learned APP, relying upon Pratibha Manchanda & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Order dated 07.07.2023 [Criminal Appeal No.1793/2023], has also supported the case of the complainant and opposed the grant of bail to the applicant considering the heinousness of the offence.

8. This Court has heard the learned (senior) counsels for the parties and has gone through the documents on record.

9. While granting anticipatory bail to the applicant, no doubt this Court has to c