ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. IA No. 01/2025 1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10736/2025. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the application has been moved under a misconception of fact, as the statement of the victim had already been duly recorded by the learned Trial Court on 27.09.2024. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the application, having been filed on an erroneous premise that the victim’s statement was yet to be recorded, is misconceived and accordingly stands disposed of. 3. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4 th Bail Application No. 10736/2025 The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1 FIR Number 153/2023 2 Concerned Police Station Khinvsar 3 District Nagaur 4 Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 450, 384, 376, 506 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 POCSO Act, Section 67b IT Act. 5 Offences added, if any Section 288 of IPC & 5 and 6 POCSO ACT, Section 66c, 66d, 66e IT Act 6 Date of passing of impugned order 02.07.2025 4. Brief Summary of Case Facts The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by Suganaram concerning an incident involving his minor daughter, Sushila (age 13 at the time). The FIR alleges that on 04.02.2018, at 10 AM, the applicant (accused) called Sushila to his maternal uncle Laxmanram's stub well, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her inside a room, throwing her on a bed, opening her salwar, and forcibly inflicting himself upon the victim despite her attempts to free herself. The FIR further alleges that the applicant threatened the minor with a knife, snatched her mobile, took semi-nude photographs of her, and transferred the photos to his own mobile. He then allegedly threatened Sushila that he would make the photographs viral, kill her brother, and ruin her family's image if she disclosed the incident. Due to this fear, Sushila allegedly remained silent, and the applicant reportedly continued to sexually exploit her by threatening to make the photos viral. He then allegedly threatened Sushila that he would make the photographs viral, kill her brother, and ruin her family's image if she disclosed the incident. Due to this fear, Sushila allegedly remained silent, and the applicant reportedly continued to sexually exploit her by threatening to make the photos viral. After Sushila became an adult and was engaged to Dalaram on 22.06.2023, the accused, identified as Mishrilal, allegedly became angry and created fake Instagram IDs (Sushila Machra-99 paid girl and Mamta Pet 87) from which he made obscene photos viral and posted wrong messages about the complainant's daughter. Upon questioning, Sushila allegedly told her mother, Tulchha, the entire story on 08.07.2023, explaining that she had kept silent due to the applicant's prior threat. Based on this written report, the case was registered under various sections including Section 384 , 376(2)(n)(3), 506, 288A of the IPC , Section 5 (L)(N)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 66C, 66D, 66E of the I.T. Act. The applicant subsequently preferred a bail application before the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases 2012, Nagaur, which was dismissed by an order dated 02.07.2025. The current matter is the instant bail application filed by the Applicant before this Court, being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforementioned dismissal order. 5. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 6. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. Having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2018, whereas the First Information Report came to be registered only in the year 2023, i.e., after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly five years. 8. Having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2018, whereas the First Information Report came to be registered only in the year 2023, i.e., after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly five years. The prosecution has not offered any satisfactory explanation as to why the victim or her family remained silent for such a prolonged period, particularly when the allegations are of a grave and serious nature. Such unexplained delay in setting the criminal law in motion casts a serious shadow of doubt over the veracity of the allegations and naturally weakens the evidentiary worth of the prosecution case. The long gap between the alleged occurrence and the reporting of the incident also deprives the prosecution of any possibility to fortify its case through medical, forensic, or contemporaneous evidence, thereby further diminishing its probative value. 9. It is further observed that the complainant has alleged that she remained silent due to fear of threats. However, the fact that she chose to lodge the complaint only after attaining majority and several years after the alleged occurrence detracts from the spontaneity and naturalness expected in cases of such nature. While the Court is conscious that delay alone cannot be the sole ground for disbelieving the victim, yet in the present facts and circumstances, the magnitude of delay, absence of medical corroboration, and lack of cogent supporting material collectively create a circumstance where the version of the prosecution cannot be accepted at its face value at this preliminary stage. 10. A perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix, as recorded before the trial court, reveals several material omissions, inconsistencies, and memory lapses which prima facie dilute the prosecution case at this stage. The prosecutrix has admitted that she does not remember the names of her school principals, her siblings’ dates of birth, or the number of times the alleged act occurred. She further stated that the incident took place in 2018, but she disclosed it only in July 2023, after her engagement in June 2023, thereby indicating an inordinate delay of almost five years in reporting the matter. She also admitted that she did not inform anyone, including her mother, about the alleged first incident at the relevant time. She further stated that the incident took place in 2018, but she disclosed it only in July 2023, after her engagement in June 2023, thereby indicating an inordinate delay of almost five years in reporting the matter. She also admitted that she did not inform anyone, including her mother, about the alleged first incident at the relevant time. The prosecutrix has further conceded that the mobile phone allegedly used for taking her photographs belonged to her “badi mami,” that the said phone was never produced before the police as it had broken, and that the phone on which obscene messages were received was a household device used interchangeably by her mother, sister, and other family members. She also expressed ignorance as to whether the obscene photographs were uploaded from the accused’s mobile or from some other person’s device, and acknowledged that the alleged threats or acts of following were not mentioned in her FIR or her statements under Sections 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. These material omissions and contradictions, coupled with the absence of any contemporaneous corroborative or forensic evidence, cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version and provide substantial ground to view the allegations with circumspection at this stage. 11. It is also relevant to note that the entire case appears to have been constructed primarily on the oral allegations of the complainant, unsupported by any immediate complaint, corroborative witness, or material evidence. The record further reveals that the victim’s statement has already been recorded before the trial court, and therefore, the primary apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may influence or intimidate the victim or tamper with the evidence no longer survives. Once the statement of the prosecutrix stands recorded, there remains no substantial likelihood of interference with the course of justice. 12. So far as the other ground for consideration, namely, the flight risk of the accused, is concerned, no such apprehension has been substantiated by the prosecution. On the contrary, the accused-petitioner has given an assurance through counsel that he shall make himself available during the course of trial, shall cooperate in all future proceedings, and shall not in any manner impede or obstruct the administration of justice. 13. On the contrary, the accused-petitioner has given an assurance through counsel that he shall make himself available during the course of trial, shall cooperate in all future proceedings, and shall not in any manner impede or obstruct the administration of justice. 13. Insofar as the alleged offences are concerned, even if the prosecution story is accepted in its entirety for the sake of argument, the principal gravamen of the allegations pertains to online dissemination of photographs, which may at best attract penal liability under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, for which the petitioner has already suffered a substantial period of incarceration. No material is forthcoming on record to suggest the necessity of further custodial interrogation, particularly when the investigation stands substantially completed and the charge sheet has already been filed. 14. At this stage, it may also be noted that the concept of pre-conviction punishment has no recognition in criminal jurisprudence. A person can only be subjected to the consequences of conviction after the finding of guilt is duly recorded by a competent court. The object of bail is not punitive but preventive, and the continued incarceration of an undertrial cannot be justified when there is no demonstrable necessity for the same. Although Section 428 Cr.P.C. permits adjustment of the period already undergone in custody against the sentence post-conviction, there exists no provision empowering a court to make an accused suffer part of his sentence prior to conviction. 15. It is a settled proposition that while considering bail, the Court is not required to record any conclusive finding on merits; however, where substantial grounds for acquittal are made out prima facie, the Court must not overlook the same. In the present case, the delay, absence of medical corroboration, doubtful circumstances, and lack of evidence showing tampering or threat are all factors that tilt the balance in favour of granting bail. 16. In light of the foregoing discussion, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted. The petitioner deserves the benefit of bail subject to strict conditions ensuring his presence and cooperation during the trial. 17. 16. In light of the foregoing discussion, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted. The petitioner deserves the benefit of bail subject to strict conditions ensuring his presence and cooperation during the trial. 17. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.