The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in a victim's statements do not undermine the prosecution, and the gravity of sexual assault against minors requires careful consideration in bail applications.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

1. By means of this bail application, applicant-Suraj Kumar alias Vishwapratap Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 188 of 2024, under Sections 65(2), 351(2), 332(c) of B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Cantt, District Prayagraj seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

2. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/complainant and perused the record.

3. The facts that formed the bedrock of the instant bail application are that the informant, who is father of the victim, got a first information report lodged on 05.09.2024 at about 23:20 hours with regard to an incident which took place on the same day at about 05:30 hours for the alleged offence under Sections 65(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections 9/10 POCSO Act against the applicant making allegations inter-alia that in the morning, when he woke up, he did not find his daughter on the bed. However, he noticed that another room was locked from inside and when he peeped through the window, he saw that the applicant was committing rape upon his daughter by pressing her mouth. F.I.R. further alleges that when the informant shouted and called his wife, applicant by opening the door, ran away by pushing him extending threat of dire consequences. Thereafter, the informant took the assistance of women helpline number 1090.

4. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that in this case, first information report was lodged after delay of 17 hours, without any plausible explanation. It is next submitted that though the informant in his statement under Section 180 BNSS has reiterated the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but there are contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. In this regard, it is further pointed out that the informant, in the F.I.R., has stated that the applicant was committing rape upon his daughter whereas the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has stated that the applicant, after disrobing her forcefully, started molesting and committed misdeed with her. The victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant, after disrobing her started touching her inappropriately and when her father came, applicant fled away from the place of incident extending threat to her father. On the strength of the aforesaid facts, much emphasis has been given by contending that the victim, in her statements, has not specifically stated that there was any penetration of penis in her vagina, hence there was no sexual intercourse, therefore, no offence of rape is made out against the applicant. Referring the medical examination report as recorded by the investigating officer in case diary, it is argued that no sign of any force was found in the medical report, hence, the prosecution case is not corroborated from the medical evidence. Referring the paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the bail application, it is submitted that the applicant was shown to be arrested on 06.09.2024 whereas correct fact is that on 05.09.2024 at about 05:00 AM, the first informant and his family members forcibly dragged him inside the house and thereafter, they called the police and falsely implicated in the present case.Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submission, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Swaroop vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 Law Suit (SC) 293 . Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. The applicant who is a student of law is languishing in jail since 06.09.2024, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail.

5. On the