Absence of Forensic and Corroborative Evidence Connecting Accused to Alleged Offense Warrants Grant of Regular Bail

The Petitioner sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 338/2024 (PS Geeta Colony) registered under Sections 376D/506 IPC.

The prosecutrix alleged that in October 2023, she was raped by a neighbor, Raj; however, the incident was reported only on 16.07.2024.

The specific allegation against the Petitioner is that he filmed the act and circulated the video clip.

The Petitioner was arrested on 30.09.2024.

The Petitioner contended that there was an inordinate delay in reporting, no medical evidence due to the prosecutrix's refusal to be examined, and a lack of forensic evidence linking him to the video.

The State’s status report was notably missing from the record.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering the lack of corroborative forensic and ocular evidence linking him to the alleged filming of the offense.

The Court considered the principles governing regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) and the penal provisions for Gang Rape (Section 376D IPC) and Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 IPC).

It relied on the evidentiary standard that while the testimony of a prosecutrix is vital, the absence of a prima facie link between the accused and the specific act alleged (filming/distribution) necessitates a lean towards liberty.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide a technical or forensic link between the Petitioner and the crime.

Specifically, the IO admitted that the Petitioner’s mobile phone was not recovered, and the alleged recipient of the video (PW5) did not produce his phone nor support the prosecution's case in court.

Furthermore, forensic examination of the video clip failed to identify the Petitioner’s voice or establish the trail of transmission.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix refused medical examination and a search of her clothing at the time of the MLC.

While the prosecutrix supported the case in her chief-examination, the Court found that all public witnesses had already been examined, and there was no evidence other than her statement to prima facie establish that the Petitioner filmed the incident.

The bail application was allowed. The Petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.