Inconsistent statements from the prosecutrix and lack of sufficient incriminating evidence justified the grant of bail to the accused, highlighting the necessity for a prima facie case for custody.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is accused of committing offences under Sections 370 /376/342/366A/34 IPC and Section 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 in FIR No. 290/2012, registered at police station Kalyanpuri, Delhi. He was arrested on 20.09.2020 in this FIR case.

2. On 16.07.2020, a complaint was received at police station by ASI Virender Singh from mother of the victim that on 12.07.2020 her daughter had gone missing. Thereafter, on 04.09.2020 the mother came to the police station with her daughter/prosecutrix, whose medical examination was conducted vide MLC No. 300/2020 on the same day. Thereafter, on 04.09.2020 itself, the prosecutrix was produced before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

3. In her statement, the prosecutrix stated that on 12.07.2020 she had gone to Jalebi Chowk, Kalyanpuri to buy chowmin and was standing near the vegetable seller, when Akash came and told her that his wife was calling her and so she went with him. He took her to a house in Sector 11, Noida where one Arun (petitioner herein) was living along with his father, two married sisters and their husbands. She was confined to the said house by those persons and was made to do daily household chores like washing, cleaning etc. and they all used to beat her. She further stated that Arun had committed rape upon her three-four times and though she tried to escape, but could not do so. The prosecutrix also stated that on 15.07.2020, Arun had forcibly married her in front of mandir in the house and made her wear mangalsutra and sindoor. She was forced to live like Arun's wife in the said house but he used to tie her hands and legs and keep her locked in one room.

4. The crux of the complaint came out to be that parents of prosecutrix lived in the neighbourhood of in-laws of Akash, who knew the prosecutrix and her family very well. Akash also knew brother-in-law (jija) of Arun and he and Arun worked together for a few days in a call centre. The prosecutrix used to accompany and help her mother who worked as safai karamchari and on their way home, both the accused used to keep an eye on prosecutrix.

5. At the instance of prosecutrix, accused Akash was arrested on 20.09.2020 from his house and petitioner/accused Arun was also arrested on the same day near his house. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 21.11.2020 against accused Akash for the offences under Sections 363/366A/370/34 IPC and for the offences under Sections 34 2/366A/370/376/34 IPC and Section 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 against accused/petitioner herein.

6. Thereafter, upon receipt of call detail record of mobile numbers used by the prosecutrix and Arun, supplementary charge sheet has been filed, however, charge is yet to be framed.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on a fabricated and concocted story, whereas the fact is that petitioner and prosecutrix worked as safai karamchari in Noida and they were having a love affair and prosecutrix wanted to marry petitioner. Further submitted that on the day of alleged incident, prosecutrix had herself come to the house of petitioner-Arun with co-accused/Akash because her parents wanted to solemnize her marriage with a handicapped person for money and she requested petitioner to allow her to stay at his house. Next submitted that petitioner had initially refused her request but the prosecutrix threatened t