Anticipatory bail is warranted where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and key prosecution evidence remains unverified.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 71/2026, registered at PS Keshav Puram for an offence under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant raped her after she consumed prasad, recorded the assault, and later blackmailed her into repeated sexual relations.

She also alleged that he had arranged a rented accommodation for her and obtained GST registrations and bank accounts in her name.

The applicant asserted that their relationship was consensual and that the complaint arose from a business dispute, under which he claimed she owed him approximately Rs. 55,39,000.

The State opposed bail but informed the Court that the chargesheet had been filed and custodial interrogation was no longer required.

The Court also considered the disputed audio and video recordings, the investigation into the alleged business transactions, and the prosecutrix’s complaints of threats.

1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant should receive anticipatory bail despite the prosecutrix’s allegations of rape and blackmail.

2. Whether the alleged business dispute, the state of the recording evidence, the investigation’s shortcomings, and the absence of any further need for custodial interrogation supported granting anticipatory bail.

The application concerned anticipatory bail in a prosecution under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision governing anticipatory bail or cite any precedent.

It assesses the application on the overall circumstances, including the State’s submission that custodial interrogation was no longer required after filing of the chargesheet, and the Court’s conclusion that there was no reason to deprive the applicant of liberty.

The Court noted that the alleged video said to have been used for blackmail had not been produced, while the applicant’s audio recordings—which he relied on to support his claim of consensual relations—had not been subjected to forensic analysis, despite the prosecutrix disputing the voice.

It further observed that the investigation appeared to have focused substantially on the business dispute, whose merits were for a competent court to determine.

The Court also took account of the State’s position that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and the status report’s account that the prosecutrix’s threat complaints had been investigated and found false.

On the overall circumstances, it found no reason to deny the applicant liberty.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.

The applicant was specifically directed not to contact the prosecutrix in any manner, and the trial court was directed not to treat the order’s observations as prejudicial to either side.