Inordinate delay in filing the FIR, refusal of medical examination, and lengthy trial process can be considered as grounds for granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.373/2021, Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376D & 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) act and Section 67 of the Information Technology act (qua the petitioner No.2).

2. Heard and considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that as per prosecution, incident took place in the first week of October, 2021; the FIR was registered on 02.11.2021; earlier, one complaint was submitted by the prosecutrix 'G' on 05.10.2021, in that complaint (FIR), the petitioner was not named and the details like father's name and other particulars regarding petitioner did not match with the petitioners in the present case. It is further stated that on 08.12.2021, one report was submitted against Chuna Ram, Dinesh and Shreeram by the petitioners; in counter of that FIR, the present false FIR has been filed on 02.11.2021; thereafter, on 09.11.2021 the prosecutrix 'G' refused for medical examination in relation to the present FIR; one another FIR was filed in regard to complaint of corruption on 28.10.2021; there is no allegation of rape against the petitioners; allegation of rape for the first time was made on 11.11.2021; no satisfactory explanation in regard to that inordinate delay filing lodging the present FIR was given; petitioners are behind the bars since 08.12.2021; charge-sheet has been filed; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently and fervently and opposed the bail applications of the accused-petitioners and stated that prosecutrix 'G' has supported the story of prosecution during her statements recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C.; and so far as delay in lodging the FIR in question is concerned, it is stated that one complaint was filed by the petitioner Narsi @ Narsingha against the family members of the prosecturix 'G' on 08.10.2021 and one of the constables of the concerned Police Station is friend of the accused-petitioners.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that there is no satisfactory explanation in regard to inordinate delay in filing of the FIR; allegation of rape was not made in FIR registered on 05.10.2021; prosecutrix 'G' has refused to undergo for medical examination in regard to allegation of rape; charge-sheet has been filed; and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the accused-petitioners deserve to be accepted.

6. Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners - Pappu @ Mukna Ram S/o Shri Rawta Ram, (Bail application No.4596/2022) and Narsi @ Narsingha S/o Sh. Bhanwara Ram, (Bail application No.3179/2022) both arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.373/2021, Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.