IMPORTANT POINT
Successive bail petitions are permissible if substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated, ensuring the rights of the accused and the victim are balanced.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J. :- The present appeal is the third attempt by the appellant-Rafiq Khan for grant of bail in FIR No.165 dated 05.08.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Women NIT Faridabad.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the appellant) is as follows:-

“12. To the SHO, Police Station Women, 21-A NIT, Faridabad. It is the submitted that I Rita W/o Munshi is resident of Gandhi Colony. My daughter Rinki is 14 years of age. On 05.08.2021, she informed me that one boy namely Rafiq had committed rape upon me on 04.08.2021 at about 05:30 pm. I have decided that my daughter be served with justice and that boy be punished, he has threatened my daughter that if she disclosed to anyone then he will kill her. Dated 05.08.2021. Sd/- Rita. ADDO-58 Gandhi Colony, NIT, Railway Road, Faridabad, Mob. No.9582836397.”

3. The appellant had earlier applied for grant of regular bail vide CRM-M-47883-2022 wherein the following order was passed on 08.12.2022:

“Petitioner is seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 165 dated 05.08.2021 under Section 506 IPC, 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act added later on) registered at Police Station Women, NIT Faridabad.

Custody certificate has been taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail remedy under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.”

Thereafter, the appellant had filed an appeal bearing No. CRAS- 2738-2022 before this Court wherein the following order was passed on 05.01.2023:

“The appellant has assailed the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Court vide which his application for regular bail has been dismissed.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the present appeal at this stage.

Dismissed as withdrawn”

Thereafter, the present appeal i.e. the third appeal/petition for grant of regular bail has been preferred by the appellant on 10.08.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is in custody since 06.08.2021. Learned counsel has further argued that there is an inexplicable delay in lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel has further argued, by referring in extenso to the testimony of the victim recorded as a prosecution witness (PW-1), to submit that the entire testimony of the victim is laced with inconsistency(s) which is fatal to the prosecution case and hence the trial is not likely to culminate into conviction of the appellant. Learned counsel has further argued that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. It has been further argued that the trial is going at snail’s pace and hence conclusion thereof will take long time. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the appellant on account of the present appeal being non-maintainable as it is the third appeal/petition for grant of regular bail as also on merits thereof. Learned counsels have further argued that the testimony of the victim as also her mother (when examined as a prosecution witness during the course of trial) completely supports the case of the prosecution. The allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. Thus, the learned State counsel as also the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 have prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

Prime Issue

6. The prime issue for co