Delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation undermines prosecution's credibility, justifying bail.

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.132/2024 registered at Police Station Borunda, District Jodhpur Rural for offences under Sections 78(1) of BNS; Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act ; and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST 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 statements of the victim ‘S’ recorded under Section 183 of B NSS , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the victim ‘S’ on the date of alleged incident her sister-in-law- Saroj called the petitioner to their house, thereafter, on being asked by her he committed sexual assault upon the victim ‘S’. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 B NSS clearly indicate that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of four months from the date of alleged incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no plausible explanation has been furnished by the victim ‘S’ for lodging the FIR after a delay of about four months. Learned counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that when the alleged incident occurred, the petitioner had any knowledge about the victim ‘S’ being a minor girl. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient material is available on record to indicate that the petitioner entered into mutual relationship with the victim ‘S’ and developed consensual physical relationship, however, on the relations between them turning strained, the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused Smt. Saroj (S. B . Criminal Miscellaneous B ail Application No.13307/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024.

4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the challan has already been filed before the competent Criminal Court; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the impugned FIR has been lodged after a delay of about four months without any plausible explanation for such delay. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the victim or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus 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 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rakesh @ Rakesh (Engine) S/o Dinaram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.132/2024 registered at Police Station Borunda, District Jodhpur Rural 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.