A bail order cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible.

The petitioner, complainant in FIR No. 379/2026 registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), alleged that respondent no. 2 repeatedly promised to marry her and thereby induced her to enter into sexual relations with him.

Respondent no. 2 was arrested on 1 September 2026 and granted bail by the ASJ on 16 September 2026.

The ASJ noted that further judicial custody was unnecessary, the investigation could continue while respondent no. 2 was on bail, and bail conditions would prevent contact with the petitioner.

The petitioner sought cancellation of bail, arguing that it should not have been granted before completion of the investigation and filing of the charges.

1. Whether the ASJ’s order granting bail should be set aside as unjustified or perverse.

2. Whether bail should not have been granted before completion of the investigation and filing of the charges.

Section 69 of the BNS was the provision under which the FIR was registered.

Setting aside a bail order requires a basis such as perversity, illegality, non-application of mind, or failure to consider relevant circumstances; bail cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible.

Relying on the principles quoted from Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi) through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sanjay Pandey & Connected Matter, the Court stated that a superior court must not undertake a threadbare evaluation of the evidence and that subsequent conduct or breach of bail conditions is ordinarily relevant to an application for cancellation, not a challenge to the original grant.

The Court found that the ASJ had considered the nature of the allegations, the stage of the investigation, the absence of a need for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner’s apprehension of contact.

The bail conditions specifically addressed the concern about contact, and the Court found no relevant material or circumstance that the ASJ had ignored.

The petitioner’s reliance on decisions concerning bail before completion of investigation did not establish a hard-and-fast rule requiring bail to be withheld until investigation and filing of charges were complete; those decisions turned on their own facts.

It directed respondent no. 2 to scrupulously comply with the bail conditions and stated that any breach would provide valid grounds to seek cancellation of bail.

To address the petitioner’s safety concerns, the Court also directed the concerned SHO, P.S. Malviya Nagar, to take appropriate action on any complaint she may make.

Pending applications were disposed of.