The court held that significant delays in filing a complaint can undermine its credibility, affecting anticipatory bail decisions.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 3042 of 2024, arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No.45/2024, CNR No. JHRN01-012934-2024, instituted u/ss. 249/ 127(1)/ 115(2)/ 63/ 64(2)(B)/ 69/74/76/318(2)(4)/352/351(2) BNS & U/s.s 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by Shri. Manish Ranjan, learned AJC-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi, by which the anticipatory bail petition of the Appellant has been rejected.

2. Heard Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Shishir Raj, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

3. It transpires that one Complaint Case No.64 of 2024 was filed by the complainant, i.e. Respondent No.2 against one Arvind Kumar Chowdhary, i.e. father of the Appellant and the Appellant, namely Manish Anand stating therein that after the death of her husband, while she was in search of a job, then she had met with Arvind Kr. Chowdhary, i.e. the father of the Appellant and who had called her and she went to a Hotel with him where he established physical relationship with her. Thereafter, she continuously remained in touch with Arvind Kr. Chowdhary, who established physical relationship with her several times. In the meantime, Arvind Kr. Chowdhary retired and during this period said Arvind Kr. Chowdhary introduced the Complainant as his wife at all the places. It has been also alleged that on 25.12.2023 Arvind Kr. Chowdhary abused her in the name of her caste on the Christmas day and thrown Rs.1,000/-. It is also alleged that Arvind Kr. Chowdhary arrived at Patna and informed her that he will not return back and upon which the Informant, along with her daughter and son went to Patna on 04.01.2024 and said Arvind Kumar Chowdhary is said to have arrived near the Patna High Court and asked her to return to Ranchi. However, in the meantime, the Appellant Manish Anand also arrived there and disclosed himself as the son of Arvind Kumar Chowdhary and threatened her, her son and daughter of dire consequences and recorded her video. It is also alleged that the Appellant had snatched her Dupatta in order to outrage her modesty and followed her to Patna Railway Station.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Complainant was in consensual relationship with Arvind Kumar Chowdhary, who is father of the Appellant, for around 16 years and at that time no complaint was raised against the Appellant. It is submitted that for the first time the Informant has made allegation of threatening and outraging her modesty on 04.01.2024 and prior to this there was no specific overt act against the Appellant. It is submitted that there is contradiction in the case of the Complainant as on the one hand she is said to have lived in live-in-relationship with the father of the Appellant for around 16 years and on the other, she could not recognize the Appellant on 04.01.2024. It is submitted that there was no public view near the Patna High Court at the time of alleged abuse given by this Appellant and hence, the Appellant may be enlarged on Anticipatory bail and the impugned order may be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that there is directed allegation against the Appellant for abusing the Complainant-Respondent No.2 in the name of her caste and al