Bail Granted in Rape and Blackmailing Allegations for Two-Year Delay in FIR and Consensual Defense

The applicant, Saifuddin Ansari, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He was arrested on 19.04.2026 in connection with Crime No. 116/2026 for allegedly committing rape, extortion, and criminal intimidation.

The complainant, a married mother of five and a former colleague of the applicant, alleged that sexual intercourse occurred on 08.08.2023 at a hotel, during which the applicant secretly recorded obscene media.

She further alleged that the applicant blackmailed her and extorted Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The applicant contended the relationship was consensual, noted a delay of 2 years and 8 months in filing the FIR, and highlighted the lack of physical injuries in the medical report.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations and the procedural history of the case.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

It considered the penal provisions of Sections 376 (rape), 384 (extortion), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Additionally, the court applied procedural safeguards under Section 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (failure to appear), and Section 351 (evidence to be taken in presence of accused) of the BNSS/BNS framework to govern the conduct of the applicant while on bail.

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically the exploitation and extortion of the victim through obscene media—against mitigating factors presented by the defense.

The court observed that the victim was an adult and the medical examination failed to show any internal or external injuries.

Crucially, the court emphasized the "unexplained delay" of approximately two years and eight months in lodging the FIR, which weakened the prosecution's immediate case for continued detention.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record, had been in custody since April 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed, minimizing the risk of tampering with evidence before trial.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend all court proceedings (personally or through counsel), and must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements.