Anticipatory bail may be granted where delayed FIR and prior strained relationship suggest lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.

The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail after his initial application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Gangtok, on 04.05.2026

The Petitioner and the de facto complainant (Respondent No. 2) were in a long-term relationship that ended in October 2025 due to the Petitioner's alleged infidelity

On 21.03.2026, a compromise was reached regarding a prior harassment complaint, wherein both parties agreed to cease contact

However, on 10.04.2026, the complainant filed a new FIR at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, alleging that on the date of the compromise (21.03.2026), the Petitioner forcibly took her to a hotel and committed sexual assault and criminal intimidation

Medical records indicated the complainant was being treated for depression following the incident

1. Whether custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary given the nature of the allegations and the prior relationship between the parties.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 64 (punishment for rape), 126 (wrongful restraint), 127 (wrongful confinement), 129 (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty—notably cited here in a general context), and 130 (kidnapping) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court balanced the fundamental principle of safeguarding the liberty of the accused against the necessity of investigation into non-bailable offences

The Court examined the necessity of custodial interrogation by scrutinizing the timeline and nature of the complaint. It noted that while the alleged assault occurred on 21.03.2026, the FIR was not lodged until 10.04.2026

The Court observed that the circumstances suggested a "strained relationship arising out of a prior love affair" and found that the complaint lacked specific detailed overt acts beyond general allegations of sexual assault

While the Court declined to doubt the veracity of the complainant's claims at this preliminary stage, it reasoned that the Petitioner’s liberty could be protected through conditional bail as the matters were subject to further investigation rather than immediate custodial necessity

It held that the Petitioner shall be released on bail, if arrested, subject to: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer within one week; (ii) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties; (iii) a prohibition on leaving India without court permission; and (iv) strict conditions against contacting or intimidating the complainant or witnesses, either personally or through parents