3] The learned Senior Advocate - Mr. Sapkal for Dr. Yadav submits that the allegations as against him are put up belatedly without there being any explanation for the delayed disclosure. He would point out that the incident as regards molestation by appellant Mahesh is stated to have taken place on 7.5.2021. She filed FIR on 15.5.2021, after 8 days of the incident. Even her supplementary statement was recorded on the next day. Later her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 18 May 2021. In none of these statements, had she ever whispered about any attempt by Dr. Yadav to molest her, much less, asking for her sexual favours. He would further point out that in the CCTV footage of the hospital being run by Dr. Yadav, it was revealed that the victim had stolen some cash from the counter and had handed it over to appellant Mahesh. It is only after he had disclosed this in writing addressed to the Police Officer that the victim informant seems to have falsely implicated him as an after-thought. He is a Doctor of repute. He would be put to avoidable harassment if he is not protected. Accepting the allegations as it is, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. The offence under the Atrocities Act cannot be made out against him. There are no allegations attributing him with the knowledge of victim's caste, which is a pre-condition for constituting an offence under Section 3(1) (w) of the Atrocities Act and consequently, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prathviraj Chauhan vs. Union of India; (2020)4 SCC 727 , the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Atrocities Act would not come into play. He may be put to any condition and may be protected.
