Adult complainant’s messages and unexplained delay supported anticipatory bail in an alleged sexual-assault case.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, whom she had known since 2023, called her to Bengaluru on 29 May 2025, had forcible sexual intercourse with her on a promise of marriage, and later harassed and threatened her, including by threatening to circulate intimate images.

She lodged her complaint on 29 March 2026, and Gokul Road Police registered Crime No. 51/2026 for offences under Sections 69, 74, 351(2), 352 and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, contending that the relationship was consensual, the complainant was an adult, and he would cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed the petition, relying on the complaint and the complainant’s statement.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the material considered by the Court—including the complainant’s statement, messages and the delay in lodging the complaint—provided sufficient grounds to refuse anticipatory bail.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, identified in the judgment as corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for anticipatory bail.

In deciding bail, the Court stated that relevant considerations include the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the risk of absconding, repetition of offences or interference with witnesses, and the accused’s character and antecedents.

The Court also observed that a bail proceeding is not a mini-trial requiring a detailed assessment of the prosecution case.

The Court considered the complainant’s statement, which it said indicated that she had visited places with the petitioner and that they had sexual intercourse, as well as WhatsApp messages in which she said she did not wish to marry him and that they should stop the relationship. It regarded this material as prima facie indicating consent and noted that the complainant was an adult at the time of the alleged offence.

The Court also considered the approximately ten-month delay between the alleged incident and the complaint, which it found had not been properly explained.

Applying the stated bail considerations without conducting a mini-trial, it concluded that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences.

These included executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like amount, attending court unless exempted, cooperating with the trial, not threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence, not committing similar offences, and reporting to the police every Sunday for six months or until the final report is filed, whichever occurs first.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail petition.