Anticipatory Bail Denied Following Allegations of Forcible Sexual Intercourse Facilitated by Threats to Minor Child

The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 296, 333, 351(3), and 64(1) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).

The victim alleged that the applicant, a fellow villager, pressured her for sexual favors while her husband was away. It is alleged that on 17.11.2025, the applicant forcibly established physical relations with the victim.

On 18.03.2026, the applicant allegedly threatened the victim and her husband with death.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated due to his acquaintance with the victim, which her husband disliked.

The State opposed bail, citing the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, where she alleged the applicant coerced her by threatening her three-year-old child and threatening to leak a video.

1. Whether, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations of sexual assault and criminal intimidation, the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

It also considered the substantive provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 64(1) regarding rape, Section 296 regarding obscene acts/songs, Section 333 regarding house-trespass, and Section 351(3) regarding criminal intimidation.

The court relied on the procedural evidentiary value of the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The court examined the materials on record, particularly the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

While the applicant argued false implication arising from a personal grudge held by the victim's husband, the court weighed this against the specific allegations of coercion.

The prosecution highlighted that the applicant used threats against the victim’s minor child and the threat of circulating a "viral video" to maintain the non-consensual relationship.

The Court determined that the manner in which the offence was committed—utilizing threats against a toddler and digital blackmail—combined with the gravity of the charges under the BNS, warranted the denial of discretionary relief.

The High Court held that the nature and gravity of the offence, and the coercive manner in which it was allegedly executed, outweighed the applicant’s plea of innocence.

Consequently, the anticipatory bail application of Shiv Kumar Kurrey was rejected.