The delay in filing a complaint raises doubts about credibility; anticipatory bail granted in light of insufficient evidence and potential for fabricated allegations.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

Heard Ms. Arpita Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, assisted by Ms. Supriya Dayal, who is Amicus Curiae and appointed on behalf of the Respondent No.2. to assist this Court, since no one has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 even after proper service of notice.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in ABP No.834 of 2024, whereby and wherein the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, in connection with SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, registered under Sections 3 54(B)/323 of IPC and under Sections 3 /4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, corresponding to complaint case No.03 of 2024, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that on 11.01.2024, a Complaint Case No. 3 of 2024 was filed by the complainant / Respondent No.2 before the Special Court, SC/ST Giridih, which was referred to SC/ST police station and then the formal FIR was drawn on 14.04.2024 as SC/ST Giridih P.S. Case No.16 of 2024, under Sections 3 54(B)/323 of IPC and under Sections 3 /4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. At the outset, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the entire allegations are false and fabricated in view of the fact that the victim complainant Respondent No.2 is a 40 years old woman and it is admitted case that the occurrence took place on 01.11.2023 and the complaint has been instituted on 11.01.2024 after a lapse of more than two months and no cogent explanation has been set out in the complaint petition, although in para-4 of the complaint petition, it has been mentioned that the complainant-victim (respondent No.2) had approached to the concerned police station on 28.11.2023 and that thereafter on 11.12.2023 before the SP, Giridih, even then after a lapse of one month, the case was instituted and thus the veracity and truthfulness of the allegations as made out in the complaint petition becomes doubtful.

5. Further it has also been pointed out that the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant entered into the house of the complainant and outraged the modesty by taking the name of caste and as such it is submitted that the alleged offence has not been taken place in the public view and no one was present there.

6. Further in support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.

7. It has further been submitted that the appellant at the time of occurrence, upon the alarm raised by the victim, was caught by the villagers, who had come after hearing the noise of hulla (alarm) raised by the victim, but even after apprehending the appellant on the spot red-handed, neither any information was given to the police nor any legal action has been taken and it also creates doubt in the veracity of the allegations made in the FIR.

8. Further, it has also been pointed out that during the course of investigation, a number of witnesses have been examined, who are the villagers and neighbours, including the husband and they have supported the case of the prosecution, but on the date of occurrence, when the neighbors and the relatives have caught hold the appellant, they did not take any legal action and therefore subsequent statement during the course of investigation also did not inspire any confidence in order to co