Bail granted in alleged rape case involving worldly-wise adults where unexplained FIR delay suggests consensual relationship.

The applicant, a 44-year-old agriculturist, was arrested on February 11, 2026, following a typed complaint filed by the 32-year-old complainant on January 10, 2026

The complainant alleged that seven months prior, the applicant abducted her through threats, confined her for 15 days, and repeatedly raped her over a period of 5-6 months at village Pated

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual between adults and lasted seven months; however, after she returned to her husband following a mutual discord, she filed a false report with an unexplained delay of 45 days

The applicant sought regular bail, noting that investigation was nearly complete and citing acquittals in several past criminal cases

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the allegations of rape and the defense of a consensual relationship

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offence under the BNS, 2023, justify continued incarceration

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

It considered the elements of Sections 64(1) (rape), 64(2)(m) (rape by person in position of trust/authority), 87 (kidnapping/abducting with intent to secretly confine), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court also applied the general principles governing bail: the nature and gravity of the offence, the socioeconomic status of the accused, the likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence, and the duration of the relationship between the parties

The court observed that the complainant is a 32-year-old adult and the FIR was lodged after a significant, unexplained delay of approximately one and a half months

It noted that the relationship appeared to be a "long relationship between adults," suggesting prima facie merit in the applicant's defense of consent

Regarding the prosecution's objection concerning six criminal antecedents, the court accepted the applicant's rebuttal that he had been acquitted in three cases and granted bail in others

The court reasoned that since the applicant has family responsibilities and there is no evidence of a likelihood of fleeing justice or tampering with witnesses, continued incarceration was not compelled

The Court held that the veracity of the allegations would be determined at trial and that the applicant's contentions were not manifestly baseless

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular appearance in court, non-involvement in similar offences, and non-tampering with evidence