Delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation can undermine the credibility of allegations, impacting bail decisions.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.413/2024 registered at Police Station Makrana, District Deedwana-Kuchaman, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecutrix ‘R’, who is a mature married woman, about three years prior to the date of lodging of the FIR, the petitioner made her to consume an intoxicant substance and thereafter, subjected her to forcible sexual assault. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, FIR has been lodged after a delay of about 2-3 years from the date when she was allegedly subjected to sexual assault, for the first time. No plausible explanation in lodging the FIR with a delay has been furnished by her. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were having consensual relationship and they were in regular contact with each other through WhatsApp/ mobile calls. However, when their relationship came to be noticed by the family members of the prosecutrix ‘R’, she has roped the petitioner in a false criminal case.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; investigation against has already been completed and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegation against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that in the present case, FIR has been lodged after 2-3 years from the date when the prosecutrix was allegedly subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner, for the first time. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that various photographs/WhatsApp chats/mobile calls/ WhatsApp calls are available on record indicating old acquaintance between the petitioner and the prosecutrix.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shaukat Ali S/o Nathu Khan arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.413/2024 registered at Police Station Makrana, District Deedwana- Kuchaman, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.