Anticipatory bail granted considering the prolonged relationship, delayed FIR, and victim’s status as a major married woman.

The Applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 446/2026 registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara, for offences under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the victim had known the Applicant since their school days and that, after promising to marry her, he established physical relations with her on several occasions, beginning on 20 September 2024 and continuing until 17 May 2026.

It was further alleged that he subsequently refused to marry her and threatened to kill her or her family if she disclosed the matter.

The Applicant denied the allegations, asserted that the relationship was consensual, relied on the victim’s status as a major and married woman, and contended that the delay in lodging the FIR raised doubt regarding the prosecution case.

The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement and the seriousness of the allegations.

Whether the Applicant, who apprehended arrest for offences under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), and 351(3) of the BNS, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Whether the victim’s majority and marital status, the alleged continuing relationship, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial justified the grant of anticipatory bail, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing directions for the grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The allegations were registered under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning the offences alleged by the prosecution.

In determining anticipatory bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the relevant surrounding circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR, the continued nature of the relationship, and the anticipated duration of the trial, while refraining from a detailed assessment of the merits.

The Court acknowledged that the victim’s statement disclosed serious allegations that the Applicant had established physical relations with her on assurances of marriage and had later threatened her.

However, while assessing the Applicant’s entitlement to anticipatory bail, it also considered that the victim was a major and married woman, that the alleged relationship had continued for a considerable period, that there was delay in lodging the FIR, and that the trial was likely to take substantial time.

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s allegations, the Court concluded that the Applicant had made out a fit case for anticipatory bail, without making any conclusive determination regarding consent, the alleged promise to marry, or the merits of the criminal case.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Paras Verma be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions that he must not influence or threaten witnesses, must not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, must appear before the trial Court on every date, must furnish the prescribed Aadhaar and photograph documents for verification, and must not commit any offence of a similar nature in future.