Anticipatory bail granted to sexagenarian accused citing medical inconsistencies and delayed FIR in rape allegations.

The applicant, a 64-year-old male, filed his first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [previously Section 438 Cr.P.C.] apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 41/2026 at Police Station University, Gwalior.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant used criminal force to outrage the modesty of a 26-year-old woman and committed rape against her will at a flat in Gwalior on 25.01.2026.

The FIR was lodged at Bhopal on 27.01.2026 rather than at the place of occurrence.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, citing a delay in the FIR, a medical report showing no injuries, and his advanced age as factors making the forcible act improbable.

The State opposed the bail, citing the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the fact that the DNA report was pending.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail considering the delay in FIR, medical evidence, and his age despite the gravity of the allegations under the BNS.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.] regarding the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.

It considered the substantive offences under Sections 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 64(1) (Punishment for rape), and 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court also relied on the procedural requirements for recording statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the evidentiary value of medical examination reports in sexual assault cases.

The Court evaluated the competing interests of personal liberty and the seriousness of the sexual assault allegations.

It noted the applicant's argument that the 26-year-old prosecutrix did not report the matter immediately in Gwalior, but instead filed the FIR in Bhopal two days later, which raised a "serious doubt" regarding the veracity of the story.

Significant weight was given to the medical examination report, which found no external or internal injuries on the prosecutrix, thereby failing to prima facie support the allegation of "forcible" sexual assault.

The Court further observed that the applicant’s advanced age (64 years) rendered the allegation of a forcible act against a younger woman "highly improbable."

Despite the State’s reliance on the implicative Section 164 statement, the Court determined that the applicant’s deep roots in society and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation mitigated the risk of him absconding.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and seeking permission before leaving the country.

The Court clarified that this opinion was for the purpose of bail and did not reflect on the merits of the case during trial.