The court emphasized the importance of considering the consistency of statements and the legal status of the accused when deciding on bail applications in cases involving serious allegations.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

CRL.M.A. 25698/2022 (Condonation of delay in re-filing)

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 19 days in re-filing the petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 3663/2022

1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 787/2022 under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Wazirabad.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 04.10.2022, the victim aged around 22 years reported in the police Station Wazirabad that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage and her statement was recorded in which she alleged that on 12.07.2021, petitioner called her on her phone and thereafter they both started talking with each other. The victim further alleged that on 13.07.2021, petitioner called her at his residence at Wazirabad, where she reached at the given address and she further alleged that there were two rooms in the flat. In one room friend of the petitioner was present and in the other room petitioner was present. She alleged that the petitioner promised to marry her and asked her to make physical relations with him, which were made 3-4 times on the pretext of marriage.

3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for complainant (respondent No. 2), perused the Status Report and also perused the records of this case.

4. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted by him that the sister of the victim made a call at PS Timar Pur on 22.09.2022 and DD No. 44 A was recorded wherein it was alleged that one boy has taken the victim after making promise to marry but she is lying unconscious at Rishikesh. It is further submitted that the relationship of the victim with the petitioner was consensual in nature. It is further submitted that on 23.09.2022 the family members of the victim called the police by dialing 112 and on that basis DD No. 28 A and 59 A were recorded at PS Timar Pur. It is further submitted that at PS Timar Pur, DCW counselor had met the victim where she stated that her mother pressurized her to call at number 100 and due to such pressure she had left her house thrice. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the victim in this respect was recorded and videographed. It is further submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation as and when called by the IO.

5. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the victim is a grown up girl and all throughout she had been a consenting party. It is further submitted that an earlier complaint with the same allegations was registered at police station Timarpur but the victim had exonerated the petitioner of all the charges, therefore, no FIR was registered at PS Timarpur. It is further submitted that thereafter family members of the victim hatched a conspiracy and the present FIR was registered at police station Wazirabad and the registration of the FIR at police station Wazirabad is illegal as per the mandate of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 689/2001". It is further submitted that the victim is in the habit of making such complaints and earlier also she had levelled similar allegations against other persons and matter was withdrawn as settled. It is further submitted that the petitioner has clean past antecedents.

6. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. She further submitted that NBWs have been issued against the petitioner and P.O. proceedings have already been initiated against him. She has also argued on the lines of the Status Report.

7. In the instant case, the FIR was registered on 04.10