Anticipatory bail granted considering delayed FIR, cross-disputes, and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Shivraj, filed his first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 in connection with Crime No. 4 of 2026 registered at Police Station-Jeerapur, District Rajgadh (M.P.) for offenses under Sections 64(1), 332(b), and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023.

The complainant, a 23-year-old married woman, reported on January 2, 2026, that approximately a year prior, on March 1, 2025, the applicant allegedly entered her home at night and committed rape, threatening her children if she reported it.

She later returned to her village, and Shivraj allegedly harassed her to meet, threatening defamation when she refused.

There is a significant delay of almost 10 months in lodging the FIR.

There are multiple cross-FIRs between the parties, and prohibitory proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 of BNS, 2023 were previously initiated by the Executive Magistrate, Jeerapur, where both parties were bound over to keep the peace.

The complainant's statement under Section 180 of the BNS mentioned consuming `celphos` due to fear of disrepute, but the medical report did not substantiate poisoning.

The applicant is 28 years old, an agriculturist, and has no reported criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant, Shivraj, should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 in light of the allegations and circumstances of the case.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (newly enacted law) which governs anticipatory bail.

While not explicitly citing specific legal precedents, the Court considered principles related to the necessity of custodial interrogation, likelihood of fleeing justice, influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, and socio-economic status of the applicant, which are common considerations in anticipatory bail jurisprudence.

The Court also implicitly considered the impact of delayed FIR registration and existing disputes between parties, which often weigh in favor of the accused in anticipatory bail applications.

The Court analyzed the application by first noting the significant delay of almost 10 months in lodging the FIR, which it considered to substantiate the applicant's defense of false implication due to a previous dispute.

It acknowledged the existence of multiple cross-FIRs and prior prohibitory proceedings between the parties, indicating an ongoing conflict.

While the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the alleged offense, the Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that no criminal antecedents were reported against the applicant after reviewing the case diary.

The Court found `prima-facie` merit in the applicant's contentions regarding the delay and ongoing disputes, stating they could not be dismissed as manifestly baseless, and that the veracity of the prosecution would be considered on merit after evidence.

Considering the applicant's age (28 years), profession (agriculturist), family responsibilities, and lack of criminal antecedents, the Court found no likelihood of him fleeing justice, committing further offenses, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

The Court concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary and that denial of anticipatory bail would cause hardship and social disrepute to the applicant.

It ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant, Shivraj, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.

The bail was granted subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not committing any offense, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and ensuring compliance with Section 309 of Cr.P.C./346 of the BNSS during trial.

The order is effective until the end of the trial, with a provision for cancellation if any conditions are breached.