Bail granted where contradictory testimonies and prior litigation history suggest false implication and personal vendetta.

The applicant sought regular bail regarding F.I.R. No. 208 of 2024 involving allegations of kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and rape under the IPC and POCSO Act.

The complainant alleged that on June 22, 2024, the applicant and three others forcibly entered her home to kidnap her daughter and committed sexual assault.

It was further alleged that the applicant had raped the victim three months prior.

The defense argued that the F.I.R. was a retaliatory measure because the applicant assisted police in a prior NDPS case against the complainant.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since July 23, 2024.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and the status of the trial.

2. Whether the provisions of the POCSO Act are applicable given the dispute over the victim's age.

The Court considered the principles governing the grant of regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS equivalents), specifically focusing on the nature and gravity of the accusations versus the right to liberty during trial.

Relevant statutes included Sections 376 (Rape), 363 (Kidnapping), 366, 452, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Court also weighed the evidentiary value of witness statements under the Indian Evidence Act, noting substantial contradictions between the F.I.R. and testimony recorded by the trial court.

The Court evaluated the significant discrepancies between the statements of the complainant and the victim; the victim testified that the incident occurred in April at a public square, while the complainant alleged it happened in June at their residence.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the victim refused a medical examination, leaving a lack of forensic evidence to support the rape charges.

The defense's contention that the victim is a major (22 years old) challenged the invocation of the POCSO Act.

The Court also took cognizance of the fact that the complainant and victim had already been examined in the trial court, mitigating risks of witness tampering, and that co-accused individuals had been exonerated during the investigation.

The Court balanced these factors against the State’s objection regarding the seriousness of the charges.

The Court allowed the bail application, ordering the applicant’s release upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.