Bail granted where a major’s relationship appeared consensual and trial would take considerable time.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 335/2026 registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 69, 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant developed a relationship with the victim, promised to marry her, established physical relations with her, and thereafter assaulted, restrained and threatened her when she sought to pursue the relationship or leave him.

The applicant denied the allegations and contended that the parties, both adults, had developed a consensual relationship after meeting through Instagram and had cohabited since March 2026.

The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) had been recorded.

The applicant had remained in custody since 27 May 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations under Sections 69, 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS?

Whether the FIR and the material collected, including the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, prima facie indicated a consensual relationship between two adults and justified release on bail?

Whether the applicant’s period of custody and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial supported the grant of bail?

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 69, 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the prima facie material in the FIR and witness statements, the circumstances indicating the nature of the relationship between the parties, the applicant’s period of custody, and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation that the physical relationship was established on a promise of marriage against the applicant’s defence that the relationship was consensual.

On examination of the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the Court found that the victim, being a major, had been in a consensual relationship with the applicant and that the relationship subsequently failed, resulting in the FIR.

The Court also took into account the applicant’s custody since 27 May 2026 and the likelihood that the trial would require considerable time for completion.

Without recording a final finding on the merits, the Court held that the material available at the bail stage justified the applicant’s release, subject to conditions intended to secure his presence and prevent misuse of the liberty of bail.

The High Court directed that Parag Patel be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The applicant was required not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, 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.

The order further provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.