Bail granted for alleged sexual assault by doctor as custody is not punitive pending trial.

The petitioner, a medical doctor, was arrested on January 14, 2026, following a complaint by a patient alleging that during a gynecological examination at PHC Gurwaith, he attempted to commit rape.

The FIR No. 10/2026 was registered under Sections 64/62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner abused his position of trust by isolating the victim and making unwanted physical contact.

A final report/challan was filed, and the petitioner was charged on March 25, 2026, for "attempt to commit rape" under Sections 62/64 BNS.

Having been in custody for five months and after a prior bail rejection by the Trial Court, the petitioner moved this successive application before the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), considering the nature of the allegations and his five-month incarceration.

2. Whether the gravity of an offense involving an alleged abuse of professional trust by a doctor creates a bar against the grant of bail when investigation is complete.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The Court relied on the principle "bail not jail" and the Constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21.

The Court cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, which established that bail should be granted unless there is a risk of fleeing or tampering with justice.

It followed Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, asserting that the object of bail is to secure appearance, not to be punitive.

Under Section 480 BNSS, the statutory bar on bail is generally confined to offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment; since "attempt to commit rape" (Sec 62/64 BNS) carries a maximum of half of life imprisonment, the embargo is not strictly applicable.

The Court analyzed the "Necessity of Custody" test, finding that since the investigation was complete and the challan filed, there was no imperative need for continued detention.

It noted a discrepancy between the initial FIR (alleging attempt) and subsequent police reports (suggesting completed rape), ultimately deferring to the Trial Court’s charge of "attempt" under Sections 62/64.

The Court balanced the heinous nature of the anti-social crime against the petitioner’s status as a professional with deep roots in society, concluding he was unlikely to flee.

It reasoned that five months of incarceration without conviction constitutes a substantial punitive burden.

The Court determined that the prosecution's fears of witness intimidation could be mitigated through stringent conditions rather than pre-trial detention.

The bail petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of ₹50,000 each, subject to conditions including surrendering travel documents, punctual attendance at trial, and a strict prohibition against contacting the prosecutrix or prosecution witnesses.