Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1393 of 2008 6.1.2009 Present: Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondent. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner in the case FIR No. 462 of 2008 dated 17.9.2008 registered at Police Station, Sadar Mandi under Section 376, 341, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.9.2008 the prosecutrix came in the Police Station and informed that she used to reside at village Nichli Suradi and is a mother of two sons. During the evening, she went to her cattle shed. While she was about to reach her residential house, the petitioner caught her from the arms and threw her on the ground and tried to commit forcible rape upon the complainant. The complainant sustained injuries on her forehead. The petitioner also inflicted injuries upon the prosecutrix with his teeth and also opened the ‘Salwar’ of the prosecutrix and threw the ‘Salwar’ away. She cried for help. She resisted the attempt of the petitioner. She narrated the entire incident to her husband and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. The prosecutrix and accused reside in the same locality. Mr. G.R. Palsara has strenuously argued that as per the prosecution the incident has taken place on 16.9.2008, however, the First Information Report was registered on 17.9.2008. According to him, there is delay of one day in filing the first information report. He further contended that there is enmity between the two families. The incident has happened near the cattle shed. The prosecutrix had cried for help. If the incident had taken place in a close proximity to the prosecutrix’s house and she has cried for help, it was bound to draw the attention of her family members. The police has not explained why the husband of the complainant was away to his in-law’s house without his wife. The plea that the husband of the complainant was away to his in-law’s house prima facie appears to have been taken to justify the delay in lodging the first information report. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. I am of the considered opinion that first information report was required to be registered immediately after the incident has taken place on 16.9.2009. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi for bail. The same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 27.12.2008. The learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the manner in which the investigation has been carried out. The delay in lodging the first information report and the absence of the prosecutrix’s husband on 16.9.2008 has not been explained satisfactorily by the police. Doctor has opined that there were no injuries over the private parts of the prosecutrix and there was no evidence of blood stains etc. The injuries received by the prosecutrix were simple in nature. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case for his bail. Consequently, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the case FIR No. 462 of 2008 dated 17.9.2008 registered at Police Station, Sadar Mandi under Section 376, 341, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and the same shall not be treated as an expression or opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’ on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 6, 2009. (cr)