MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, stands instituted by the bail applicant, under, Section 438 Cr.P.C , wherein he seeks grant of anticipatory bail qua him, given his apprehending his arrest, for his allegedly committing offences punishable, under Sections 376, and, section 506 of the I.P.C registered in case FIR No. 78 of 2018 of 1.11.2018, with Police Station, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P.

(2.) The reason for this Court proceeding, to, afford facility of bail, to the bail applicant, is, embedded in the factum of (a) the prosecutrix alleging qua hers being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the bail applicant, in, the year 2016, without, hers specifying the date or the month of the aforesaid year, whereat the afore alleged penal misdemeanors stood perpetrated, upon her person (b) the afore lack of enunciation, with, precision in the FIR also concomitantly render her allegations being construable to be both vague, and, nebulous.

(3.) The delay in lodging of the FIR is immense, and, therefrom an inevitable inference, is gatherable qua the prosecutrix, meting consent to the sexual intercourse, which stood allegedly forcibly perpetrated on her person, by the bail applicant. Even though she metes an explanation, for the afore delay, yet the explanation is comprised in the factum, qua upon hers reporting the matter to the police hence attracting social stigma upon her, yet the afore explanation rather prima facie, appears to be vague, and, acquires an aura of falsity, given hers being a married lady, and, when she could well earlier disclose the matter to the elders of her family, or, to her husband.