The court established that significant delays in filing an FIR, when unexplained, can be a critical factor in granting bail, especially in cases where the trial is expected to be prolonged.

JUDGMENT

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.299/2021, Police Station Karghani, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj.), registered for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant through video conferencing. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that FIR was filed after a delay of 3½ years; as per the FIR, incident took place in the month of October, 2017; prosecutrix 'A' is 23 years old lady; there is no satisfactory explanation for delay in filing the FIR; as per prosecution, before incident, prosecutrix got three times pregnant by her husband; accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 25.04.2021; charge-sheet has been filed; trial of the case will take long time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant through video conferencing fervently and vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that accused-petitioner as well as prosecutrix are neighbours and belong to the same caste. While seeking attention in regard to FIR, it is also stated by learned counsel for the complainant that prosecutrix was threatened by accused-petitioner on the basis of photographs and video clips which were prepared at the time of rape and due to diminishing of reputation and fear of insult in the society, earlier FIR could not be registered. Learned counsel further stated that accused-petitioner is 25 years older than prosecutrix; prosecutrix was hospitalised in SMS hospital, Jaipur as she had consumed phenyl and she was discharged after two days, therefore, delay in filing the FIR is explained by learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

As per documents submitted by the complainant side, prosecutrix was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 22.02.2021 and on scrutiny of the record, this Court finds that there are no documents in relation to discharge of the prosecutrix from the hospital. For the sake of arguments, even if it is admitted that prosecutrix was discharged after two days i.e. on 24.03.2021, but despite that, complaint was filed on 02.04.2021 and there was no satisfactory explanation for such delay.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that admittedly, first incident took place in the month of October, 2017; charge-sheet has been filed; trial of the case 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 application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Birbal Sharma S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Sharma, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.299/2021, Police Station Karghani, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj.), shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and 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.