ORDER : 1. Arrested in furtherance of investigation into C.R. No.151/2016 of Police Station Kolayat (Bikaner) for offences under Sections 376, 323, 341/34 and 450 IPC, accused petitioner has laid this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 5th of August, 2016 at 07:30PM complainant Ms. “J” along with her father submitted a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, inter-alia, alleging therein that about six months back when she was all alone at her home, as her mother had gone to her maternal house, brother Rahul went to school and father was on shop, at about 11:00AM petitioner-her uncle (Tau) came there and after catching hold of her committed the rape. The report further unfurls that complainant was threatened by the petitioner with dire consequences not to disclose the incident to anyone. After arrival of her mother, complainant divulged the entire episode to her, besides other family members, and approximately after 15-20 days of the incident a meeting was arranged at the resident of Ganesh Mal where accused apologized for his dubious conduct and thereupon the members of complainant’s family decided to sever their social relationship with the petitioner and his family. 3. The complaint further reveals that the trauma of incident of rape had a great impact on the psyche of the complainant, and therefore, eventually she decided to prosecute petitioner. Thereafter, on 3rd of August, 2016, complainant prepared herself to lodge report but family members of the petitioner, relatives and neighbours dissuaded her on some pretext by allegedly citing remorse shown by him (petitioner) for his conduct, however, as per report when the complainant declined their request they went on rampage by inflicting serious blows to her mother, father and brother. The report was registered as C.R. No.151/2016 at Police Station Kolayat (Bikaner) wherein petitioner was castigated for the aforesaid offences. Pursuant to the report, police commenced investigation and recorded statements of the complainant under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and she was subjected to medical examination. During the course of investigation, petitioner was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. 4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against petitioner for the said offences before Judicial Magistrate, Kolayat and he applied for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate declined bail to him. During the course of investigation, petitioner was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. 4. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against petitioner for the said offences before Judicial Magistrate, Kolayat and he applied for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate declined bail to him. Later on, petitioner moved bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) but his that effort also proved abortive. Subsequent to that, learned Judicial Magistrate, Kolayat, while resorting to Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case for trial to the learned trial Court. 5. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. J.S. Choudhary, while espousing cause of accused petitioner for bail, has strenuously urged that entire incident narrated in the written complaint submitted before Police by complainant is founded on false, fabricated and concocted facts. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that inordinate delay of six months in lodging the report itself is sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the entire incident. Mr. Choudhary has contended that criminal prosecution of petitioner for the said offences, at the behest of complainant, is nothing but a clear case of wrecking personal vengeance inasmuch as there existed a land dispute between his family and family of complainant. 6. While referring to the statements of complainant (prosecutrix) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., learned Senior Counsel has argued that per se those statements are not inspiring confidence. Elaborating his submissions, in this behalf, learned Senior Counsel submits that the statement of the complainant (prosecutrix) are conspicuously silent about date of the incident and no plausible reasons are forthcoming for inordinate delay in lodging the report. Learned Senior Counsel would urge that the statements of three witnesses, viz, Chandan Mal, Mohan Lal and Tikam Chand, recorded during investigation, are prima facie inculpatory to indict the petitioner for the aforesaid offences but these statements are not of sterling worth for the reason that none of them are having their permanent abode at village Jhajhu, Tehsil Kolayat and all of them are residing at Bikaner. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that police has not recorded statements of some of the real brothers of petitioner, who are residing in the same village. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that police has not recorded statements of some of the real brothers of petitioner, who are residing in the same village. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that requisite affidavits of Manju Devi, Ganesh Mal, Gawaskar, Kaushalya Devi and Shiv Kishan are indicating that so called remorse of the petitioner for his alleged misdeeds is nothing but sheer concoction and a brain child of complainant. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has contended that there is a cross FIR by the petitioner bearing No.156/2016, registered at the same police station, wherein complainant’s father, mother, brother and Shubhkaran are charged for offence punishable under Sections 458, 376, 354, 323, 341, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Deepak Choudhary, has vehemently argued that complainant has made serious allegations against her real uncle (Tau)-petitioner which are prima facie substantiated by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to discard the requisite incriminating evidence against him. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that reference about the affidavits tendered by some of the individuals, in favour of petitioner, are unworthy of any credit inasmuch as these affidavits are not part of the charge-sheet. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that delay in lodging FIR is not fatal in case offence involved is of mental depravity. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that petitioner being real uncle (Tau) of the prosecutrix has committed rape upon her, therefore, his bail plea is liable to be thwarted. 9. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor, submits that positive assertion of petitioner about on going land dispute between his family and family of the complainant is wholly unfounded inasmuch as no litigation in this behalf before the competent Court is pending. Mr. Jain would contend that such felony (rape) by real uncle (Tau) with his niece is a glaring example of abhorrent conduct by the petitioner, who held a position of trust towards her (complainant). While joining issue with the petitioner on delay, Mr. Mr. Jain would contend that such felony (rape) by real uncle (Tau) with his niece is a glaring example of abhorrent conduct by the petitioner, who held a position of trust towards her (complainant). While joining issue with the petitioner on delay, Mr. Jain submits that same has been satisfactorily explained in the report as well as statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In this behalf, learned counsel for the complainant submits that at times if a woman is ravished by her near relative or an incumbent who was enjoying position of trust qua her due to social taboos and apprehension of possible scandal delay in lodging FIR is a usual phenomena in our society, which cannot be construed as mitigating circumstance for grant of bail. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available materials. 11. The instant case, as projected in the FIR and unfolded during investigation, is prima facie revealing sordid tale of complainant (prosecutrix), who is allegedly ravished by her real uncle (Tau). The evidence collected during investigation, which includes police statements of parents of the prosecutrix and three other witnesses, viz., Chandan Mal, Mohan Lal and Tikam Chand, are prima facie indicting the petitioner for the charged offences. That apart, statements of the prosecutrix Ms. “J” recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her deposition under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are clear and unequivocal without any inconsistency or contradictions showing involvement of petitioner in commission of a very serious offence. True it is, that FIR in the matter is lodged belatedly but then that cannot be a plausible ground to completely repudiate prosecution case, more particularly, when the hapless victim of the offence of rape is from rural background. The rustic and uneducated villagers are not expected to be precise on the time concept. Moreover, vis-a-vis sex offence, delay stands generally explained because in Indian society it brings a scandal to the family of prosecutrix and a good deal of time is unnecessarily wasted to decide as to whether the scandal should be made public or not. 12. A glance at the FIR and the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that she has made an affirmative attempt to explain delay. 12. A glance at the FIR and the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that she has made an affirmative attempt to explain delay. It is also noteworthy that complainant (prosecutrix) in the FIR has castigated her real uncle (Tau) for offence of rape, therefore, being a close relative and pressure of social taboos had apparently discouraged her to launch prosecution against the petitioner immediately. The rape, being a very serious offence, which has shattered the complainant, having direct impact on her psyche, eventually, induced courage to her for launching prosecution against the offender. 13. Delay in lodging first information report itself is not a guiding factor to repudiate the entire case when allegations made in the FIR are denoting offence of mental depravity and duly corroborated by the statements of other witnesses. In such situations, at the preliminary stage, it may not be appropriate to shun the available material merely on technical pretext. At the stage of consideration of bail application primary concern of the Court is to see prima facie incriminating material against the accused person and it would be unwise to make comment on delayed action of the complainant in initiating the prosecution. This aspect can be examined during trial upon appreciation of evidence which may be adduced by the prosecution. 14. The Legislature, upon considering the sensitive nature of trials of rape, has envisaged camera trial for offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D & 376E IPC. While amending Section 327 Cr.P.C. by Act 43 of 1983 w.e.f. 25th of December, 1983, the Legislature has made an affirmative attempt not only to protect honor of sexually victimized women but also to make it possible for them to depose in the Court without any fear of social ostracism. 15. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner about enmity between families of complainant and accused appears to be quite alluring but sans requisite material to substantiate it is per se not of any credence. Leveling allegations of rape against real uncle (Tau) by a girl (prosecutrix) for wrecking personal vengeance does not sound prudence because normally a lady is not expected to expose herself to ridicule at the cost of putting her chastity and reputation in jeopardy. Leveling allegations of rape against real uncle (Tau) by a girl (prosecutrix) for wrecking personal vengeance does not sound prudence because normally a lady is not expected to expose herself to ridicule at the cost of putting her chastity and reputation in jeopardy. Therefore, having regard to the alleged criminal delinquency of the petitioner, coupled with available prima facie incriminating material against him, without making any comment on merits of the case, I feel dissuaded to accept the bail application at this stage. In view thereof, the instant bail application fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.