A delay in filing an FIR and lack of injuries can raise doubts about the credibility of allegations, justifying the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.68/2024, registered at Police Station Kushalgarh, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 366, 344 and 376(2)(n) of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the statements of the victim- ‘A’ recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 26.07.2023, the victim- ‘A’ voluntarily eloped with the present petitioner and remained in his company for about 3 months.

4. Learned counsel submitted that when the relations between the parties turned sour, the victim- ‘A’ has lodged an FIR about 7 months after the alleged incident alleging inter alia that on 26.07.2023, she was forcibly abducted by the petitioner and her family members. It has further been alleged that the petitioner has committed forcible sexual assault- rape upon her when she was forcibly kept by the petitioner in his custody.

5. Learned counsel submitted that no plausible explanation for lodging the FIR after a delay of more than 7 months has been given by the victim. Learned counsel contended that the material available on record indicates that while the victim- ‘A’ was in the company of the present petitioner, she had ample opportunities of disclosing the factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to sexual assault- rape by the petitioner, however, she did not do so. Learned counsel submitted that the Medical Examination Report of the victim- ‘A’ also do not indicate any internal or external injuries on her body parts.

6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the challan against him 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.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that owing to some misunderstanding between the parties, the present FIR came to be lodged by the complainant against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that during the pendency of the present bail application the parties have decided to settle their disputes amicably in the spirit of Lok Adalat and thus he has no objection if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

8. 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.

9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Praveen Mahunya S/o Man Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.68/2024, registered at Police Station Kushalgarh, District Banswara, 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.

10. 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.