Bail granted in sexual offence case involving a soured adolescent romantic relationship and no criminal history.

The applicant, a 19-year-old student, was arrested on December 4, 2025, following an FIR lodged at Police Station Mohan Badodiya.

The victim (aged approximately 19 years and 9 months) alleged a six-year romantic relationship with the applicant.

She claimed that after the applicant married another woman in April 2025, he forcibly took her to Indore on October 17, 2025, maintained physical relations, and subsequently circulated obscene photographs and videos of her to her mother and the public.

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that the case arose from a sour romantic relationship and that the victim had voluntarily shared the photographs.

At the time of the application, the investigation was complete, the final report had been filed, and material prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the stage of the trial and the nature of the evidence?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It considered the penal provisions under Sections 140(3), 351(3), 64(2)(m), 78, and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act; and Sections 66(E), 67(A), and 67(B) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act.

The court relied on the principle that bail may be granted where the investigation is complete, material witnesses are examined, and there is no evidence of criminal antecedents or likelihood of tampering with evidence.

It further referenced Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses.

The Court evaluated the merits of the bail application by balancing the gravity of the charges against the applicant’s profile and the trial's progress.

It noted that the applicant is a 19-year-old student with no prior criminal record and strong family roots, which minimized the risk of flight or recidivism.

The Court observed that since the investigation was concluded and material prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the risk of tampering with evidence was significantly reduced.

The Court found prima facie merit in the defense's argument that the incident stemmed from a "romantic relation between adolescents" that had turned sour.

It concluded that continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to the young applicant and was unnecessary as the offence was not deemed "heinous or brutal in nature affecting society at large" in the context of the evidence presented.

It held that under the circumstances, continued detention was not warranted.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including: regular appearance before the trial court, refraining from committing similar offences, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The Court also mandated compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses.