MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 88/2025 of PS Chittaranjan Park for offence under Sec. 376 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant as well as learned APP for State and learned counsel for prosecutrix.

(2.) Broadly speaking, prosecution case as unfolded through the FIR registered on the statement of prosecutrix is as follows.

(3.) On behalf of accused/applicant, it is contended that the FIR is based on an extraordinarily long complaint. It is also argued that the prosecutrix being a well educated working lady travelling even abroad repeatedly in connection with her work, it is not believable that she would be so gullible as to enter into long time sexual relations with the accused/applicant, blindly believing his promise to get married, which promise would be kept alive for so many years. It is also contended that since the prosecutrix herself claims that she visited residence of the accused/applicant number of times and even met his parents, sister and cousins, it is not believable that on those visits across such a long period, she would not have come across any material reflecting that the accused/applicant is a married man. Further, it is contended that in January 2020 itself, the prosecutrix claims to have sensed something wrong but she continued relationship with the accused/applicant, which clearly shows that it was a consensual relationship between the two. Even after the alleged revelation of marital status of the accused/applicant in January 2023, the prosecutrix did not lodge any complaint for more than two years and that, according to learned counsel for accused/applicant raises strong suspicion about truthfulness of the FIR.