Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent have appeared in-person.

2.

The bail petition is filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with Crime

No.01/2022 registered by the Saidapur Police Station for

the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC.

3.

The bail application filed by the petitioner in

Crl. Misc. No.34/2022 has been rejected by the District

and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri vide order dated 11.02.2022

4.

Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for

petitioner submits that the allegation made in the

3

complaint against the petitioner is false, baseless as his

name does not stand in the FIR.

Next, he submitted that there is an abnormal delay

of nearly 1 year 4 months 5 days in lodging the complaint

i.e., from the date of the alleged offence.

A further submission is made that there is no

explanation for the delay and the complaint is silent about

the delay.

Learned counsel vehemently urged that on perusal of

the contents of the complaint, it clearly shows that there is

no injury sustained to the private part of the complainant.

It is also submitted that there is no male Y chromosome to

this extent and there is no medical report.

It is also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial

custody since from the date of his arrest. He is law abiding

citizen and he has movable and immovable properties

situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.

4

Lastly, he submitted that the petitioner is ready and

willing to abide by any stringent conditions to be imposed

by this Court while enlarging him on bail. Accordingly, he

submitted that the petition may be allowed.

5.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has

vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground

that prima facie case is forthcoming against the petitioner.

The petitioner is accused of committing a serious offence

punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. The fact that

there is a delay in filing the FIR cannot be a reason to

grant bail to the petitioner.

Learned HCGP vehemently contended that there are

reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is guilty of

the offence alleged. The petitioner may flee away from the

jurisdiction of the Court and tamper the prosecution

witnesses. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the bail

petition.

5

6.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of both

the parties.

While addressing the argument, learned counsel for

petitioner strenuously urged that there is an inordinate

delay in giving information to the police. The FIR was

registered nearly after 1 year 4 months 5 days after the

alleged incident. He states that the fact that there is an

inordinate delay in giving information to the police and in

recording the FIR is sufficient for the petitioner to be

released on bail.

I have carefully heard the submission made on

behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. There is lot of

force in the submission made by the counsel for the

petitioner that such a thing could not be missed by the

prosecutrix. It is stated that the petitioner is in custody

since more than 49 days.

The material on record i.e., the complaint averments

would indicate that the incident is alleged to have taken

6

place on 28.08.2020 at about 10.00 a.m., whereas the

complaint is given on 05.01.2022 i.e., after 1 year 4

months 5 days after the incident.

Learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

has

furnished the copy of Section 164 Statement. The

statement is recorded on 06.01.2022.

Section 164 statement does not indicate or give any

reason as to why there is a delay of 1 year 4 months 5

days in recording the statement of the victim and getting

the FIR registered.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar

v.

Ashis

Chatterjee,

(2010)

14

SCC

496

has

emphasized on the parameters for granting or refusing to

the grant of bail as under:

"9. We are of the opinion that the

impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is

trite that this Court does not, normally,