ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11196035240150 of 2024 registered with Vadi Police Station, Vadodara.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in the present offence, the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place between 10.09.2016 and 30.11.2019, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 07.06.2024. The delay caused in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the first informant. The FIR lodged by the first informant is full of falsehood, as in the FIR, it has been alleged by the first informant that in the Year 2016, the applicant had promised her that he would bring her a Watch from America. However, in the Year 2016, the applicant herein had never been to America, he had been in America in the Year 2019 and no such Watch had been gifted by the present applicant to the prosecutrix i.e. the first informant. The FIR in question had been lodged with an ulterior motive. It appears that the intention on the part of the first informant and his family members is to malign a particular sact. The correctness of the alleged whats’ app chats between the present applicant and the first informant is a matter of trial.

2.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place on 10.09.2016 and it is alleged that on that day, the present applicant had called the prosecutrix to the temple at the time of Aarti and she was taken on the ground floor of the temple where the alleged act had been committed by the present applicant. At the time of Aarti, there are number of disciples present in the temple and if the prosecutrix had raised some alarm, somebody of them could very well notice the same. However, the prosecutrix had not raised any alarm, which in itself, creates a doubt about a story of the prosecutrix. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has sought relied upon following judgments:-

“1. Chanchalpati Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 650.

2. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat &

Anr. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152.

3. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694.”

4. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the present applicant being a Sadhu of the Swaminarayan Sact had subjected the prosecutrix to physical abuse. The prosecutrix, at the relevant time, was aged below 16 years and she was subjected to physical relations by the present applicant against her will. He also taken this Court through the whats’ app chats, which had taken place between the present applicant and the first informant, which indicate that the present applicant had indulged into physical relations with the prosecutrix, who was aged below 16 years at the relevant time.

He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned advocate for the applicant has heavily relied upon the aspect of delay caused in lodging the FIR, as the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place between 2016 and 2019 years for which the FIR has been lodged in the Year 2024. However, it is required to be noted that the present applicant is holding a position of Sadhu of the Swaminarayan Sact and father of the first informant i.e. the prosecutrix was his deciple. The present applicant had initially, developed formal relations with the prosecutrix through her father, and thereafter, had lured her of for several worldly things and on those basis, had established physical relations with the prosecutrix. The record indicates that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was merely 15 years an