Bail granted for sexual harassment offenses despite criminal antecedents due to unexplained delay and counter-complaint.

The applicant, a Deputy Manager at SBI, was arrested on 11.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 543/2025.

The complainant, a Manager at the same office, alleged that the applicant made unwanted advances, stalked her, sent obscene messages, and on 04.11.2025, inappropriately touched her in the office parking lot while demanding sexual favors through blackmail.

The applicant contended that the FIR was a "counter-blast" to his own prior complaints against the victim and another colleague (dated 24.11.2025 and 25.11.2025) and highlighted a 24-day unexplained delay in reporting the incident.

The State and Objector opposed bail, citing the applicant’s 11 previous criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of sexual harassment and his criminal history.

The court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding bail.

Sections 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 75 (Sexual harassment), and 78 (Stalking) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The Objector relied on *Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh* (2014), *State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi* (2005), and *Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka* (2017), which establish that criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offense are critical factors in the judicial discretion of granting bail.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the procedural context of the case.

It noted the applicant’s argument that he had filed an FIR and a departmental complaint against the complainant *prior* to her lodging the present FIR, suggesting a possible retaliatory motive.

The Court also took cognizance of the 24-day delay in filing the FIR.

Despite the Objector’s emphasis on the applicant’s 11 criminal antecedents and the restrictive principles laid down in *Neeru Yadav*, the Court focused on the applicant's duration of detention since 11.12.2025 and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court determined that the period of detention already served was sufficient to incline the balance in favor of liberty, provided stringent conditions were met.

The holding is contingent upon strict conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence during trial proceedings; and (iii) specific personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Any violation of these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.