Bail can be granted when there are no compelling reasons against it, particularly when significant time has lapsed since arrest, and material inconsistencies weaken the prosecution's case.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The present application has been filed under section 439 CRP.C., seeking the grant of regular bail to the applicant in case FIR bearing no. 297/2022 registered under sections 354(A)/ 354(D)/ 506/

376 IPC at PS Kirti Nagar.

Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

2. As per allegations, a former acquaintance of the complainant, had been harassing and threatening her for over two years through calls, messages, and social media. Despite repeatedly blocking his numbers, he continued to contact her using different phone numbers, created fake social media profiles in her name, and shared her personal photos with her friends and family. He even physically stalked her outside her office and residence, issued threats to kill her, and coerced her into maintaining contact under threat of public defamation. The complainant approached police and filed multiple complaints, ultimately leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 354A, 354D, and 506 IPC.

3. Later, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutix revealed that the applicant had also established physical relationship with her on false promise of marriage, resulting in pregnancy, which he forcibly terminated by giving her medication. After she distanced herself from him, the applicant resumed threats, including acid attack threats and extortion for sexual favours. The applicant allegedly circulated her intimate photos to relatives and continued his conduct even after repeated police interventions. Based on her statement and supporting evidence, the applicant was arrested, and chargesheet under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, and 376 IPC was filed against him.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is an inordinate delay of approximately four years in the registration of the FIR, which casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations. It was Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed contended that the charge sheet has already been filed, the evidence of the complainant has been completed, and no other public witness remains to be examined. The applicant is stated to be the sole breadwinner of his family, with his father currently bedridden due to paralysis. It was further submitted that the complainant, who is the star witness, has been examined and discharged, and has not supported the prosecution case in material particulars.

5. It was also argued that the complainant made substantial improvements in her version during the recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC, as no allegations of rape were made in her initial complaint. The complainant herself admitted to being in relationship with the applicant since 2018, and the allegation of rape surfaced only later. Further, no investigation report has been placed on record to conclusively establish that the mobile number in question belongs to the applicant. It was lastly submitted that the applicant is already on bail in previous criminal cases and has remained in custody in the present case since 24.03.2022, i.e., for a period exceeding three years.

6. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant has prior criminal antecedents and is involved in three other criminal cases. It is alleged that the applicant established sexual relations with the complainant on false promise of marriage. The complainant and the applicant were known to each other and had worked together at a call center. After the complainant Bail Appln. 1754/2024 Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed left the job, the applicant reconnected with her, introduced her to his relatives, and subsequently developed physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant deliberately concealed his prior criminal antecedents, which he was duty-bound to disclose, as held by the Supreme Court in Kaushal Singh v