Delay in lodging FIRs casts doubt on their credibility, and bailable offences entitle the accused to anticipatory bail under specific conditions.

ORDER

The petitioner has now been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.1560/2019 of Tripunithura Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for offences punishable under Secs.354A & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.7, 8, 9m, 10, 11(iii) & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

2. The said crime was initially registered as Crime No.739/2019 of Chottanikkara Police Station for the very same offences, on the basis of the FI Statement given by the minor victim girl aged 11 years on 01.11.2019 at about 6 p.m. (the crime registered on the same day at about 10.20 p.m.), in respect of the alleged incident which happened for the period from 01.01.2016 onwards. The said crime at Chottanikkara Police Station was transferred and re-registered as the instant Crime No.156/2019 of Tripunithura Hill Palace Police Station, as the major incidents are said to have happened within the territorial limits of the Hill Palace Police Station.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the date of birth of the minor victim girl is 02.12.2008 and that sometime about two years prior to the submission of the instant FI Statement dated 01.11.2019, the petitioner/accused now aged 46 years, used to frequently visit the victim girl’s residence and that he is a relative of the girl’s mother and that on quite a few occasions, he used to lift her dress and touched her private parts and also shown naked photos of women in his mobile cell and thereby, he has committed the abovesaid offences. It appears that the victim girl and her father belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and now the police after investigation has also added the offence as per Secs.3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended.

4. Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.R.Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated and further that the allegations are pertaining to events which was admittedly taken place more than two years prior to the instant FI Statement dated 01.11.2019 and therefore, appears to be sometime in the year 2017, whereas the FIS and the crime has been lodged only as late as on 01.11.2019 and the long delay in the lodging of the case has not been even remotely explained by the prosecution agency and therefore, the long and unexplained delay would patently vitiate the impugned criminal proceedings, as it affects the very believability and credibility of the prosecution case. The petitioner would place reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court in cases as in Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu ]AIR (1973) SC 501], State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Madhusudhan Rao [ (2008) 15 SCC 582 ], etc., wherein this Court has laid down the legal principles regulating the delay in lodging the First Information Reports and that wherein it has been held that delay in registration of the FIR will more often than not, result in embellishments and exaggerations, which are creations of afterthoughts. Delayed report, not only gets bereft of the advantages of spontaneity, but the danger of introduction of coloured versions exaggerated account of incidents or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation also creeps in, which would cast a serious doubt, very veracity of the prosecution story. Therefore, it has been held that it is highly essential that the delay in lodging the FIR should be satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, etc.

5. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the offence as per Secs.354A & 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code are bailable offences, going by the prescriptions contained in Part-1 of the Schedule appended to the Cr.P.C and further that the said offence as per Secs.354A &

506 (ii) of the IPC are also included in the Schedule appended to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended. In that regard, the learned senior counsel would point o