Bail granted after prosecution witnesses were examined, notwithstanding the petitioner’s prior abscondence.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 377/2022, registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave under Sections 323, 354 and 376 IPC; a supplementary chargesheet also included Sections 419 and 511 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was taken to a guest house, where the petitioner sexually assaulted her, and that a co-accused behaved inappropriately towards her.

The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender and surrendered on 7 August 2024; the trial was at the prosecution-witness stage, and the petitioner had undergone approximately 1 year and 11 months in custody.

In support of bail, the petitioner relied on the complainant’s and guest-house manager’s evidence concerning her presence at the guest house, her prior relationship with the petitioner, and the absence of an observed altercation.

The petitioner also submitted that all prosecution witnesses had been examined and that the co-accused had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s prior non-appearance, proclaimed-offender status, other criminal cases and alleged risk of influencing witnesses.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in light of the evidence recorded at trial, his custody, the co-accused’s release, and the State’s objections concerning his conduct and risk to witnesses.

2. Whether the petitioner’s conduct in custody and his prior status as a proclaimed offender warranted refusal of bail.

The petition was presented under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as stated in the judgment.

The prosecution case arose under Sections 323, 354 and 376 IPC, with the supplementary chargesheet also invoking Sections 419 and 511 IPC.

The Court assessed bail by considering the circumstances on record, including the trial evidence, custody undergone, status of the co-accused, and the asserted risks of absconding or influencing witnesses.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a separate statutory test for bail.

The Court noted that the complainant’s testimony and the guest-house manager’s evidence described her voluntary presence at the guest house and did not establish an observed quarrel there.

It also considered that the complainant testified to knowing the petitioner for years, wishing to marry him, and not raising an alarm or making a complaint while at the guest house.

Weighing this evidence alongside the fact that all prosecution witnesses had been examined and the co-accused had been granted bail, the Court found the circumstances sufficient to grant bail.

Although the State relied on the petitioner’s unsatisfactory jail conduct, the Court noted that he had already faced punishment for it; it nevertheless imposed conditions addressing attendance, reporting, residence, contact information and interference with witnesses.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial on the merits.