JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The instant application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of applicant/accused seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.

334/2022, registered at Police Station Sector-23 Dwarka, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 29.07.2022, a compliant was registered by one Smt. „SR‟ in which she had alleged that the present applicant/accused had raped her daughter/victim i.e. Ms. „KR‟ at her residence on 19.07.2022. Thereafter, the present FIR had been registered. During investigation, statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded in which she had alleged that she was 17 years of age at the time of incident and was studying in „X‟ School. It was further stated by the victim that both of her parents were working i.e. her father was posted in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and her mother was posted in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. It was also stated by the victim that she lived with her elder brother and that her mother used to leave for office at 6.30 AM in the morning and used to come back by 5-6 PM. It was also alleged that victim‟s friend „Y‟, who lived next to her house had a boyfriend i.e. the present applicant Rishabh Dwar, who the victim also knew for a couple of months. It was alleged by the victim that the present applicant had called her on 19.07.2022 at about 12.30 AM and had told her that he wants to surprise her best friend „Y‟ and thus had requested the victim to meet him outside her home. Thereafter, the present applicant had reached victim‟s house at around 7:00 AM on 19.07.2022 when she was alone at her house as her mother had left for work and her elder sibling had gone to her hometown for a couple of days. It was further alleged by the victim that the applicant had forcibly developed physical relationship with her against her consent. She also informed the police that she had kept on resisting, however, the applicant had got aggressive. Thereafter, when the victim‟s friend „Y‟ had arrived, both the applicant and her friend „Y‟ had left her house. It was further stated by the victim that since she was scared, she did not tell her parents about the incident on that very day. However, the victim had informed her parents about the incident on 23.07.2023. Thereafter, the victim was medically examined wherein she had given history of forced sexual assaults against her consent. During investigation, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present accused/ applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that in the contents of the FIR itself, the complainant had disclosed that her daughter/victim had run away from home on 27.07.2022 at night. Thereafter, the victim was handed over to the complainant by a PCR van on an undertaking that the victim would give her mobile to the complainant i.e. her mother and that it is further mentioned in the FIR by the complainant herself that her daughter/victim is threatening to commit suicide and to falsely implicate her mother. It is argued that it can be easily construed that the victim is fully aware of the consequences of her actions and she has the tendency to falsely implicate any person including her mother if her wishes are not fulfilled. It is further submitted that there is a considerable delay of about 10 days in registration of the present FIR and the said delay has not been explained. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the residential society in which the victim resides is entirely covered by CCTV cameras and whenever someone enters or exists the society, a register for the same is also maintained by the society guards and as per the said register, the present applicant had not visite