Bail granted considering the adult prosecutrix, prolonged relationship, completed investigation, and likely trial delay.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Crime No. 204/2026, registered for offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The 22-year-old prosecutrix alleged that the applicant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her near Dodra Dam and later at Khariyar Road, Odisha, on multiple occasions, including on the pretext of marriage.

The applicant contended that they had been in a consensual relationship and that the complaint followed the arrangement of her marriage elsewhere; he also relied on the filing of the charge-sheet and his custody since 15 July 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail pending trial in light of the allegations and the circumstances placed before the Court.

2. Whether bail should be subject to conditions designed to secure the applicant’s attendance and prevent misuse of liberty.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In exercising that power, the Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the prosecutrix’s age, the parties’ relationship, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period in custody, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court imposed conditions governing attendance, adjournments, and consequences for non-compliance or failure to appear following a proclamation.

The order does not cite or articulate a separate precedent-based test.

The Court weighed the prosecution’s allegations and the State’s reliance on the prosecutrix’s statement against the circumstances advanced in support of bail.

It considered that the prosecutrix was a mature adult, that the parties had been in a relationship for a considerable period, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that the applicant had been in custody since 15 July 2026; it also noted that the trial was likely to take time.

On that basis, it found bail appropriate, subject to conditions intended to ensure the applicant’s participation in the proceedings and discourage delay or non-appearance.

It directed that the applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was made subject to conditions concerning adjournments when witnesses are present, appearance before the trial Court, compliance with any proclamation, and personal attendance at specified stages of the proceedings.