Inordinate Delay in FIR Lodging a Crucial Factor for Bail in Section 376 IPC Case: High Court - 2025-04-26

Delay in Reporting Alleged Offence Leads to Bail Grant in Rape Case

Rajasthan High Court Considers Inordinate Delay and Complainant's Status in Bail Application

Jaipur: In a significant ruling concerning a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the Rajasthan High Court (as implied by the nature of the application and the judge's designation) has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under Section 376 and later Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court highlighted the substantial delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) as a key factor in its decision.

The petitioner, identified as Rakesh Son Of Vishram, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 227/2022 registered at Police Station Mandhan, District Alwar (Police District Bhiwadi). He sought bail following his arrest on November 8, 2022.

Case Background and Petitioner's Arguments

According to the defence counsel, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. A crucial point raised was that the FIR was lodged by a 24-year-old married woman, but only after a delay of more than two and a half years from the date of the alleged offence. The counsel submitted that the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the complainant did not provide any satisfactory reason for this considerable delay.

Further arguments for bail included the petitioner's period of custody since November 2022, the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed, indicating the completion of the investigation, and the likely delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial. The petitioner also submitted that he had no prior criminal antecedents.

Court's Reasoning

Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal , presiding over the bail application, considered the contentions advanced by the petitioner's counsel, the nature of the allegations, and the material presented in the charge sheet.

The Court specifically took into account the "inordinate delay in lodging the FIR" and the contents of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Other factors influencing the decision included the petitioner's length of custody, the absence of any criminal history, and the observation that the trial of the case is likely to take a significant amount of time.

Crucially, the Court clarified that its decision was made "without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case," focusing solely on whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail pending trial based on the circumstances presented.

Decision

Based on these considerations, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

The bail application was allowed, and Rakesh Son Of Vishram was directed to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He is required to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is also stipulated to comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's consideration of delays in reporting alleged crimes, particularly when the complainant is an adult, as a relevant factor in assessing bail applications, alongside other established criteria like custody period, criminal antecedents, and the potential duration of the trial.