Court permits bail primarily due to delay in FIR filing and absence of evidence from the petitioner’s mobile, emphasizing that seriousness of allegations must be weighed against evidence available.

Order

17/07/2025 This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.505/2024 registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 506 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, Sections 5(l)/6 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act and Section 6 7B of the Information Technology Act .

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner by the victim ‘D’ alleging inter alia that about four years prior to the date of lodging of the FIR, the petitioner, who was having acquaintance with her, made her eat a Kachori containing intoxicant substance. Upon consuming the Kachori, when she fell unconscious, the petitioner captured her obscene photographs and vidoes and thereupon, by threatening her to circular them on social media platform also subjected her to forcible sexual assault/rape on multiple occasions. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the FIR, the video clips and photographs allegedly captured by the petitioner were later on circulated by him through WhatsApp. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner and the victim were in a consensual relationship, however, on relations between them turning strained, the petitioner has falsely been roped in a criminal case by the victim.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that no obscene video or photograph of the victim has been recovered by the investigating agency from the mobile phone of the present petitioner and on the contrary, the same has been made available to the investigating agency by the victim herself. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the victim have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing her.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of more than four years; the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the impugned FIR clearly discloses that the petitioner forcibly subjected the victim to sexual assault at the time when she was minor. He further submitted that in the present case, the obscene photographs and videos of the victim have been recovered by the investigating agency and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of more than four years from the date when the victim was allegedly subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner for the first time; no obscene photograph or video of the victim has been recovered from the mobile of the petitioner; the statements of the victim have already been already been recorded and the learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or fleeing from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail.

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is or