Bail granted where delayed FIR and conflicting prosecutrix statements suggest consensual relationship rather than sexual assault.

The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging the Gwalior Special Judge's order dated 23.06.2026, which denied his bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The appellant was arrested on 14.06.2026 for alleged offences including stalking and rape under the BNS and various sections of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant contended that the prosecutrix is a married lady with whom he had a prior relationship, and that the FIR was lodged two months after the alleged incident.

Notably, the initial FIR was for stalking, but allegations of rape were only added later in the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

An affidavit from the prosecutrix's father was submitted stating his daughter would cease communication with the appellant.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of bail pending trial considering the delay in FIR registration and the nature of the subsequent allegations.

Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court considered the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the general judicial principles for bail, including the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice and the duration of the trial.

The court evaluated the transition of the prosecution's case from stalking under Section 78(2) of the BNS to rape following the prosecutrix's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The court noted the two-month delay in filing the FIR (incident: 08.03.2026; FIR: 20.05.2026) and the defense's argument regarding a pre-existing relationship.

Justice Yadav observed that the trial would likely consume significant time and that there was no immediate evidence suggesting the appellant would flee from justice.

The court also took into account the appellant's undertaking to cooperate with the trial and the restrictive conditions proposed to prevent harassment of the complainant.

The appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The court imposed several conditions, including that the appellant must not contact or harass the complainant, must not leave India without permission, and must mark his presence at the police station on the first Sunday of every month for one year.

Failure to comply with these conditions will result in the immediate withdrawal of the bail benefit.