Anticipatory bail granted where complainant makes successive improvements and delayed allegations of heinous offences during investigation.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after his initial plea was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri.

An FIR (No. 0570/2025) was registered on 22.11.2025 based on a complaint alleging that on 03.10.2025, the petitioner forcibly entered the prosecutrix's room, assaulted, and molested her.

During the investigation, the prosecutrix's subsequent statements under Sections 179 and 183 of the BNSS introduced new allegations of rape occurring in January 2025 and November 2025.

The investigating agency found that while the initial offences fell under the jurisdiction of P.S. Rajouri, the rape allegations (Section 64 BNS) pertained to P.S. Kalakote and were reported after a 10-month delay.

The trial court denied bail based on the gravity of the charges.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in anticipation of arrest given the nature of the allegations and the conduct of the prosecutrix

2. Whether the continuous improvements and delays in the prosecutrix's testimony affect the entitlement to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, relating to anticipatory bail.

Sections 333 (house trespass), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 74 (outraging modesty), and 64 (rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court emphasized the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, noting that liberty is a precious value that should not be dealt with lightly unless involvement is established in a full trial.

The Court observed a significant delay of over 50 days in the registration of the FIR regarding the October incident.

The Court noted that the initial written complaint mentioned only molestation and assault, whereas subsequent statements under Sections 179 and 183 BNSS introduced "improvements and exaggerations" regarding rape allegations spanning back ten months.

The Court found that the trial court failed to consider these inconsistencies.

The Court noted that for the specific offences alleged within the jurisdiction of P.S. Rajouri (Sections 333, 351(2), and 74 BNS), the maximum punishment is seven years and the investigation—consisting primarily of technical data like CDR and tower locations—was in its final stages. Therefore, custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary.

The court held that the petitioner, in the event of arrest, shall be released on bail upon executing a surety bond of Rs. 25,000 and a personal bond of the same amount subject to conditions including: non-tampering with evidence, remaining within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, and not making any inducements or threats to witnesses.