Lack of corroborative evidence for rape and forced abortion allegations justifies grant of anticipatory bail.

The accused/applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 650/2025 registered at PS Adarsh Nagar for offences under Sections 64(2), 89, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecutrix alleged that while working with the applicant in Ghaziabad, he coerced her into transporting narcotics from Himachal Pradesh to Delhi.

She further alleged that on 25.02.2025, the applicant raped her in a hotel, recorded the act, and later used the video to extort ₹4,00,000.

Additionally, she claimed the applicant and his parents forcibly administered substances to terminate her resulting pregnancy in April 2025.

Procedurally, the applicant was granted interim protection from arrest on 26.09.2025, which continued until the final hearing.

During the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) found no material evidence supporting the claims of rape, drug peddling, extortion, or forced abortion.

Medical records from the clinic mentioned by the prosecutrix indicated treatment for a simple stomach ache rather than an abortion.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in light of the Investigating Officer’s report finding no evidence to support the prosecutrix's allegations

2. Whether the lack of corroborative medical and digital evidence, combined with the prosecutrix's history of similar complaints against other individuals, warrants the confirmation of interim bail

The court considered the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 64(2) (punishment for rape), Section 89 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation).

The court applied the established legal principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, focusing on the prima facie veracity of the allegations, the availability of corroborative evidence, the potential for the accused to flee or tamper with evidence, and the conduct of the accused while on interim liberty.

The court observed significant inconsistencies and a lack of evidentiary support for the prosecution's case. It noted that the allegations regarding drug peddling remained unexplained, particularly why the prosecutrix failed to report the discovery of narcotics to the police immediately.

Regarding the charge of forced abortion, the IO reported that medical records from "Jyoti Clinic" indicated the prosecutrix was treated only for a stomach ache, contradicting her claims of a forced procedure.

Furthermore, a forensic examination of the applicant’s mobile phone yielded no objectionable videos or pictures as alleged.

The court also took note of the applicant’s contention that the prosecutrix had filed a similar complaint against another person in Himachal Pradesh and had omitted allegations against the applicant’s father in the present FIR that were present in earlier complaints.

Given that the State (via the APP) did not oppose the bail due to the lack of evidence, and the applicant had not misused his interim protection since September 2025, the court found no grounds for custodial interrogation.

The court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.

The court further directed that the applicant must not contact the prosecutrix in any manner. It clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not prejudice the final trial.