Bail granted where a major shared a prolonged consensual relationship and investigation was complete.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 0106/2026 registered at Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur, for offences under Sections 64(m), 332(b) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that between 27 December 2024 and 4 February 2026, the applicant established physical relations with the major victim on the promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her.

The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) alleged that the applicant had sexual intercourse with her despite her refusal, took her to Ambikapur, kept her in a rented room, and continued the alleged conduct until he refused to marry her.

The applicant denied the allegations, asserted that the relationship was consensual, relied on the victim’s majority, the medical report, delay in lodging the FIR, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of the trial.

He had remained in custody since 13 June 2026.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offences under Sections 64(m), 332(b) and 69 of the BNS.

Whether the applicant’s alleged consensual relationship with the major victim, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet justified release on bail despite the allegations recorded in the victim’s statement.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

It considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 64(m), 332(b) and 69 of the BNS, together with established bail considerations including the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, likelihood of delay in trial, criminal antecedents, and the prima facie circumstances emerging from the record.

The Court acknowledged that the victim’s statement supported the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant had physical relations with her on the promise of marriage and later refused to marry her.

However, for the limited purpose of deciding bail, it gave weight to the victim’s majority, her prior acquaintance with the applicant, the Court’s assessment that the parties had been in a consensual relationship and had engaged in physical relations on multiple occasions, the applicant’s absence of criminal antecedents, the period of detention since 13 June 2026, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

Considering that the trial was likely to take time and without making a final determination on the merits, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary and that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.