IMPORTANT POINT
In rape cases, especially involving minors, the gravity of the offense and prima facie evidence can outweigh delays in filing FIRs when considering bail.

ORDER :

1. Arrested in furtherance of FIR No.201/2023, registered at Police Station Semari, District Udaipur, petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.(Section 483 of new Code) for releasing him on bail. The petitioner is charged for offences punishable under sections 143, 341, 363, 366A, 376(2)(3)(n), 384 of the I.P.C.

2. To begin at the beginning Shri Ojas Shakdwipeeya, learned counsel representing petitioner has fervently argued that FIR in the present case has been lodged delayed. Not only has the charge sheet been filed in the case but statements of eight witnesses, including the victim, have also been recorded. There is a contradiction regarding date of alleged incident of rape with victim. The three co-accused, who were said to be with the petitioner, were neither known to the victim nor was a test identification parade conducted for them. The actual date of birth of the victim has been concealed. No injuries were found on her private parts and in fact the complainant may not be the girl with whom the alleged incident occurred, as two different names of victim have clearly emerged on the record.

3. It has also been argued that the date of birth of victim cannot be said to be conclusively proved. She seems to be a adult female. Learned counsel claims this is a matter of the victim's consent, which is why she allegedly stayed with the petitioner for two days. It is further argued that entire allegations so leveled by the complainant/victim against the petitioner is totally false and baseless. Concluding submissions, he asserted that petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the applicant; that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed petitioner does not deserve any leniency. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

6. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, I am clearly of the view that in the present case, victim is prima facie a minor and has clearly alleged rape in her statements recorded during the trial. Other contradictions pointed out are minor in nature. Rape, especially involving a minor, is a grave offense given the vulnerability of the victim and the nature of the crime. Prosecution has presented a strong prima facie case against the petitioner, demonstrating substantial evidence of guilt which influences the court to deny the bail to the petitioner.

7. In a rape case, delay in filing the First Information Report is often considered unimportant, particularly because of the sensitive nature of such cases. This court understands that family of victim of rape may take time to come forward to lodge a FIR. In the present case, delay in filing the FIR cannot be used against victim as a sign of falsehood or exaggeration, especially in a situation when the petitioner has not brought forward any specific case of enmity or rivalry with the victim party.

8. In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on record in respect of the applicant, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioner, the antecedents of the applicant and the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on bail.

9. On these considerations and in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that accused has failed to carve out a strong case for bail in his favour.

10. Bail application therefore, is utterly misconceived, hence deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly.

11. The above obser