SHETHNA, J. - (1.) - Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case
(2.) UNDER Section 376 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act has been registered against the accused by the prosecutrix at the instance of one Jeetu though her mother and father were not willing to file any FIR. He submitted that there is a gross delay of five days in lodging the FIR and the same has been filed on account of cross case registered against one Jeetu. He further submitted that the girl was not minor and she was aged about 23 yrs. and she was forced to file complaint UNDER Section 3 of SC/ST Act as well as UNDER Section 376 IPC. Mr. Kalla has also relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 473 (1) and submitted that now a days it is so easy for a person to file complaint UNDER Section 3 of SC/ST Act. Even if the parents of the girl were not willing to lodge any FIR about the incident that fact itself would not be sufficient to release the accused on bail when such a serious offence of rape is committed. It may be that to save themselves from embarassment the parents might have decided not to lodge any complaint about the incident to the police. But the girl mustered courage and lodged the complaint after five days then in my opinion nothing wrong is there in it. The very fact that the complaint was not lodged immediately in this case suggests that it was not a false case. Second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner accused was that the girl is major and aged 23 years has no substance. According to prosecutrix her age is 13 yrs. and medical report also shows that she is hardly 17 yrs. She belongs to `Sargara community, which is a scheduled Caste community. Her only fault was that she belong to that community and made victim of such type of heinous offence. I cannot accept the submission that she has filed false complaint against the accused at the instance of one Jeetu against whom the cross case is filed by the present accused. This type of defence cannot be accepted even at the final stage as ordinarily no minor girl would make false accusation at the instance of some one else, which would ultimately tarnish her image in the society. The judgment of this Court referred hereinabove has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case where there was a dispute between the parties regarding land. On facts of that case this Court observed that, "after going through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge it cannot be said that a false case was filed against the petitioner." Further, the provision of anticipatory bail is not meant for these type of persons against whom such serious heinous offences are registered.
(3.) BEFORE parting, I must state that ordinarily this Court refrains itself from elaborate discussions, but when certain contentions were raised and decision was invited then there was no other option for this Court but to deal with the same by giving brief reasons. It goes without saying that the trial Court has to decide the case only on the basis of evidence led before it in a trial. Whatever observations made in this order shall not come in the way of the trial Court in deciding the case finally, which is to be decided on Accordingly, this bail application fails and is dismissed.;