The court considered the inordinate delay in filing the FIR, lack of corroboration of rape allegations with medical evidence, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the accused.

Headnote:
Bail - Rape Allegations - Inordinate Delay in Filing FIR - Medical Evidence - [RAPE] - [BAIL] - The court granted bail to the accused considering the age of the prosecutrix, the inordinate delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of corroboration of rape allegations with medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR for offenses punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 384, and 323 of IPC. The prosecutrix, aged 26, alleged that the petitioner committed rape on several occasions, with an inordinate delay of more than 3 months in lodging the FIR.
Finding of the Court:

The court deemed it just and proper to grant bail to the accused considering the age of the prosecutrix, the delay in filing the FIR, and the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed.
Issues: Delay in filing the FIR, corroboration of rape allegations with medical evidence, and the petitioner's custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in filing the FIR, lack of corroboration of rape allegations with medical evidence, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the accused.
Final Decision: The bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused was directed to be released on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The instant application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of petitioner, who has been arrested in FIR No.267/2021 of Police Station Rupangarh, District ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n), 384 and 323 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant FIR is counter blast to the FIR lodged by the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the age of the prosecutrix is 26 years and as per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has alleged that the incident of rape was committed with her by the petitioner on several occasions and even 2-3 months before lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that there is inordinate delay of more than 3 months in lodging the FIR for which no reasonable explanation has been given. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations of rape are not corroborated with the medical evidence and petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2021 and after investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted. So, indulgence of bail be granted to petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

4. Looking to the fact that the age of the prosecutrix is 26 years and in her statements, she has stated that the incident of rape was committed with her 2-3 months before lodging of the FIR and looking to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take long time, without commenting any opinion on merits or demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge accused-petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

5. accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Ganesh S/o Nanuram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.267/2021 of Police Station Rupangarh, District ajmer provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document