Having heard the learned Senior counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, the learned counsel for first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the F.I.R. giving rise to present application for bail is highly belated, inasmuch as there is a clear recital in the F.I.R. that the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred three years prior to the date of F.I.R. itself, there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R., in view of above, the prosecution of the applicant itself cannot be maintained, in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in P. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Mandar Deepak Pawar (supra), there is no medical evidence to support the ocular version of the occurrence as the prosecutrix has herself refused for her internal medical examination, the prosecutrix and the applicant were in acquaintance with each other as is established from the whats app chat of the prosecutrix and the applicant, which fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing first informant, pen drive alleged to have been given by the mother of the prosecutrix regarding obscene photographs of the prosecutrix to the Investigating Officer, has not been part of the case diary, there is nothing on record to show that the requisite certificate in respect of pen drive in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act was given by the mother of the prosecutrix to the Investigating Officer, the applicant has not been charge sheeted under Section 67A of the I.T. Act, embellishment that has occurred in the statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161/164 Cr. P. C. qua the story unfolded in the F.I.R. remains unexplained upto this stage, the
