Bail granted considering the alleged prolonged relationship, joint travel, completed investigation, and likely trial delay.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 167/2026, registered for an offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant forcibly had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix from 1 May 2026 and on subsequent occasions, and took her to Ambikapur and Delhi, where they stayed together for approximately 15 days and one month, respectively.

The applicant asserted that they were related and had been in a consensual relationship; both were married.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and he had been in custody since 25 August 2026.

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

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the allegations and the circumstances of the case.

If bail is granted, whether it should be subject to conditions securing the applicant’s attendance and the progress of trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In exercising that power, the Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the relationship alleged, the parties’ circumstances, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the anticipated duration of trial.

The Court imposed attendance and trial-participation conditions, including conditions concerning adjournments and appearance on specified dates.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered that the applicant and prosecutrix were both married, had allegedly stayed together in Ambikapur and Delhi for an extended period, and were said to have been in a relationship for a considerable time; it also treated the prosecutrix as a mature woman aged about 28 at the time of the incident.

In addition, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 25 August 2026, and trial completion was likely to take time.

On balance, the Court found these circumstances sufficient to grant bail, notwithstanding the State’s reliance on the serious allegations in the prosecutrix’s statement.

It directed that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, to attend court as directed, and to appear personally on specified trial dates.

The order also provided for consequences under the stated statutory provisions in the event of non-compliance or misuse of bail.