Absence of injuries in medical report and delayed FIR support bail in alleged rape case.

The applicant, Shivraj Yadav, was arrested on February 3, 2026, following an FIR registered at Police Station Biaora for alleged offences under Sections 64(1), 332(b), 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant alleged that on January 20, 2026, the applicant entered her home and committed rape under threat to life, an incident witnessed by her husband upon his return.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and the allegations were a result of premeditation following the discovery of the affair by the complainant's husband.

The medical examination of the complainant revealed no external injuries suggestive of forceful intercourse, and the police have since completed the investigation and filed the final report.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the allegations of rape and the medical evidence on record.

2. Whether the continued judicial incarceration of the applicant is warranted given the completion of the investigation and his lack of criminal antecedents.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The court also referred to the substantive offences defined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 64(1) (punishment for rape), Section 332(b), Section 115(2) (voluntary causing hurt), and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation).

Procedural compliance regarding the examination of witnesses was noted under Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.).

The court evaluated the merits of the bail application by balancing the gravity of the offence against the evidentiary findings.

It observed that the medical report did not show any external injuries, which prima facie supported the applicant's defense of a consensual relationship rather than forceful intercourse.

The court noted that the investigation was complete and the final report had been submitted, meaning the applicant's custody was no longer required for interrogation.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant, a 41-year-old agriculturist with no prior criminal record, posed a low risk of fleeing from justice, recidivism, or tampering with evidence.

The court underscored that the veracity of the prosecution's claims is a matter of trial and that prolonged pre-trial incarceration would cause undue hardship.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The court imposed specific conditions, including mandatory attendance at trial hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The order is effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to the trial court's power to cancel bail in case of a breach of conditions.