Bail granted to house owner where primary sexual assault allegations lack medical corroboration against co-accused.

The applicant, a 65-year-old landlord, was arrested on February 7, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 105/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on February 6, 2026, the applicant and co-accused Shyam Yadav entered the room of the victim (a 64-year-old tenant), where Shyam Yadav sexually assaulted her while the applicant watched and failed to intervene.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending he had no direct role in the offense and was being implicated merely for being the landlord.

The State opposed the bail, citing the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and his period of incarceration.

The court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantive charges were leveled under Sections 64(2)(k) (Punishment for rape in certain circumstances) and 332(B) (punishment for house-trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also applied procedural safeguards under Section 183 of the BNSS (statements to Magistrate) and referenced future trial obligations under Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (non-appearance), 269 (trial in absence), and 351 (examination of accused) of the BNSS/BNS framework.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against several mitigating factors. It noted that while the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS implicated the applicant, the allegations were not corroborated by the medical report.

The Court observed that the applicant is a senior citizen (65 years old), has been in custody since February 7, 2026, and the investigation is complete with the charge-sheet already filed.

Additionally, the court found no evidence of previous criminal antecedents.

By balancing the lack of overt sexual acts attributed directly to the landlord against the procedural progress of the case, the court determined that further pre-trial detention was unnecessary.

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant’s regular appearance before the trial court, a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments, and strict compliance with trial procedures under the BNSS.

The Court further directed the trial court to endeavor to conclude the trial within six months.