The court ruled that delays in filing an FIR and lack of medical evidence may undermine the credibility of serious allegations, potentially influencing the decision on bail.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Allegations of rape against the applicant by the victim, who is the wife of the co-accused - Delay in lodging FIR and lack of medical examination raises doubt on credibility of allegations - Court finds the matter as a potential matrimonial dispute. (Paras 2, 6, 10)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail in cases of serious allegations - Evaluating the circumstances, including the applicant's status of judicial custody and the nature of the complaints against both parties. (Paras 10)

Facts of the case:
The victim alleged rape by her brother-in-law and his brother during a visit to her matrimonial home, with a delayed report to police and no medical evidence of the alleged crime.

Findings of Court:
The application for bail is granted based on the circumstances, including the applicant's duration of custody and issues surrounding the credibility of the victim's claim.

Issues: Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical evidence undermine the prosecutrix's allegations against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that the inconsistencies and absence of immediate medical corroboration contribute to doubts about the reality of the claims made by the victim, justifying the bail grant.

Result: Bail granted.

Table of Content
1. petition for bail based on fir allegations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defense arguments regarding false implication. (Para 4 , 5)
3. prosecution response and delay in reporting. (Para 6 , 7)
4. investigation findings and discrepancies. (Para 8 , 9)
5. court's reasoning for granting bail. (Para 10)
6. no opinion on case merits expressed. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. This petition is filed by petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 740/2020 under Sections 323/376/376B/376D/506 IPC registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 7.9.2020, the victim lodged an FIR against the petitioner/applicant who is her brother-in-law and his co- accused, namely, Jakir who is the husband of the victim. It is alleged by the victim that on 27.08.2020 between 2.00 am to 5.00 am the applicant/petitioner and his brother committed rape on the victim at her matrimonial home. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 24.09.2020.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, learned APP for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the status reports dated 17.7.2021 and 13.01.2022 and also perused the records of this case.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that co- accused Jakir has been granted default bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 09.12.2020. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/applicant that petitioner is a married man having one year old son, and has been falsely implicated in this case because the prosecutrix and her husband, namely, Jakir who is the brother of the petitioner are having matrimonial dispute and owing to the dispute the prosecutrix used to spend most of her time at her parent's house. It is further submitted that on 25.06.2020 a quarrel took place between the prosecutrix and her husband Jakir which resulted into filing a kalandra no. 750/2020 under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C vide DD No. 116A at Police Station Khajuri Khas, and the brother of the petitioner, namely, Jakir was sent to judicial custody and was released on bail on 28.6.2020.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 27.08.2020, the prosecutrix visited her matrimonial house on the pretext of taking clothes of her children, and thereafter she left at around 9:45 pm, and got the present FIR registered on 07.09.2020 alleging that petitioner and his brother had raped her on 27.08.2020. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the prosecutrix she was raped by the petitioner and his brother on the intervening night of 27.08.2020 and 28.08.2020 from 2.00 am to 5.00 am but the FIR was not lodged immediately when according to the prosecutrix such a brutality was committed upon her. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix has not got herself medically examined immediately after the incident when according to her she was continuously raped for about 3 hours by two men. It is further submitted that in these circumstances as alleged by the prosecutrix, there would be injuries on her body which should have been detected had she gone for her medical examination immediately after the incident but for the reasons best known to her she had not gone for her medical examination and has not even lodged the FIR immediately after the incident and even refused for her internal medical examination which shows the falsity of the case of the prosecutrix, and this case is nothing but arises out of a matrimonial dispute between her and her husband co-accused Jakir. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the chargesheet has already been filed, and the petitioner has been made an scapegoat because of the matrimonial fight between his brother Jakir and the prosecutrix. He f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document