Unexplained delay in FIR and omission of allegations in prior complaints justify grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 123/2026, registered at Police Station Maharajpura, Gwalior, for alleged offences of rape and criminal intimidation

The prosecutrix, who married the applicant's son on September 9, 2023, alleged that the applicant committed rape against her on October 24, 2025, while her husband was working in Dubai

The FIR was lodged on March 3, 2026, approximately four and a half months after the alleged incident

The applicant contended that the prosecutrix had filed a prior complaint before the Mahila Thana on February 25, 2026, which notably omitted any allegations of sexual assault against him

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) / Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) considering the delay in FIR registration and the omission of allegations in prior complaints?

The court considered the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.) governing the grant of anticipatory bail

Substantively, the allegations involved Section 64(1) (punishment for rape) and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court applied the principle that an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with the subsequent introduction of serious allegations not found in initial complaints, may justify the grant of discretionary bail relief

The court evaluated the applicant's request for bail by scrutinizing the timeline of the prosecutrix's allegations.

It noted a significant delay of nearly four and a half months between the date of the alleged incident (October 24, 2025) and the registration of the FIR (March 3, 2026), for which no plausible explanation was provided

Furthermore, the court found merit in the applicant's argument regarding the omission of rape allegations in the prosecutrix's initial complaint to the Mahila Thana on February 25, 2026, which suggested the possibility of the allegations being an afterthought with an ulterior motive

Taking into account the applicant’s status as a permanent resident, the lack of flight risk, and his undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, the court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must cooperate with the investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave the country without prior permission from the trial court or investigating officer