Bail denied in attempted murder and harassment case despite plea of consensual relationship and photographs.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), following his arrest for offences involving stalking, assault, and attempted murder

The prosecution alleged that on February 16, 2026, the applicant intercepted the complainant’s daughter and made objectionable advances

On February 18, 2026, after being confronted by the father, the applicant allegedly arrived at the complainant’s residence, used abusive language, and fired a gunshot at the complainant with intent to kill

The applicant contended that the allegations were false, stemming from a consensual relationship opposed by the complainant, and sought bail on the grounds of completed investigation (charge-sheet filed) and prolonged trial duration

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of allegations and material on record

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), specifically Sections 296 (Obscene acts/songs), 75(1) (Sexual harassment), 78(1) (Stalking), and 109(1) (Attempt to murder)

It further applied Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act regarding the unauthorized use of a firearm

evaluated the procedural requirements for bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while considering the evidentiary value of a victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS

The Court analyzed the gravity of the offence alongside the evidence collected during the investigation. Although the applicant claimed a consensual relationship and submitted photographic evidence, the Court prioritized the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The statement categorically corroborated the prosecution's narrative of persistent harassment, sexual advances, and the specific overt act of the applicant firing a pistol at the victim's father.

The Court further noted that the applicant had two criminal antecedents, with one case still pending.

By applying the law to these facts, the Court reasoned that the use of a firearm and the intent to kill established a prima facie case of serious nature, outweighing the arguments regarding the completion of the charge-sheet or personal animosity.

The bail application was rejected.

the Court granted liberty to the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.