A Heinous Offence Alone Cannot Justify Bail Denial After Investigation Is Complete

The complainant alleged that she and the petitioner had been in a relationship since 2020. She alleged that, on 20 February 2021, he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, took private photographs and videos, and later threatened to disclose them when she refused to marry him.

After the alleged harassment continued, she attempted suicide by consuming tablets on 29 June 2026 and subsequently lodged a complaint.

The petitioner was arrested on 4 July 2026 and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The police had filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 64, 77, 78(1)(i), 78(1)(ii), 356, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 66(E), 66(D) and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offences.

Whether the completion of the investigation, filing of the charge sheet and the petitioner’s period in custody supported release on bail subject to conditions.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court applied the principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, that pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment, and that the seriousness of an alleged offence, by itself, does not require denial of bail; the decision must be assessed in light of the case’s circumstances and may be subject to conditions.

The Court also considered whether further custodial interrogation was necessary after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet. No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court considered that the alleged sexual assault dated to 20 February 2021, that the complaint was not made immediately, and that the complainant and petitioner had been in a relationship.

It inferred at the bail stage that the sexual intercourse was initially consensual and noted that the complainant was about 20 years old at the time.

The Court also took account of the alleged later threats involving private images and videos, but concluded that the completed investigation and filed charge sheet meant custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Given the petitioner’s custody of more than two and a half months, the Court found no sufficient reason to deny bail and held that the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed through conditions.

The Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail in Crime No. 159/2026 upon executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Conditions included cooperation with the investigation and trial, attendance when directed, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, and refraining from committing similar or other offences while the case was pending.

The complainant or police may seek cancellation of bail if the conditions are breached.