Bail granted where DNA is negative, FIR is delayed, and allegations suggest an afterthought.

The appellant filed a first criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging the order dated 19/06/2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Vidisha, which denied his bail application.

The appellant was arrested on 10/04/2026 for allegedly committing rape against the prosecutrix at her residence on 06/04/2026.

The prosecution alleged the appellant entered the victim's room while she was sleeping and fled when she screamed.

The appellant contended that the FIR was delayed by three days without explanation, the DNA report was negative, and the prosecutrix’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS suggested the case was an afterthought initiated after her husband saw the appellant.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, considering the discrepancies in the prosecution's case and the duration of custody.

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) (formerly Section 439 CrPC) relating to the special powers of the High Court regarding bail.

Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, ensuring the victim was informed of the proceedings.

Sections 64(1) and 332(B) of the B.N.S. (rape and house-trespass) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court examined the material evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident. It noted the appellant's primary arguments: the unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the negative DNA report, and the fact that the investigation was completed with the filing of a charge-sheet.

The Court considered the discrepancies identified in the prosecutrix’s statements under Sections 183 and 180 of the BNSS, specifically the claim that her husband witnessed the appellant leaving.

Since the appellant had no criminal antecedents, was in custody since April 2024, and the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to protect the prosecutrix.

The Court ordered the release of the appellant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The holding was conditioned upon the appellant cooperating with the trial, not influencing witnesses, and strictly refraining from contacting or harassing the prosecutrix/complainant party, whether physically or via digital modes, failing which the bail would be withdrawn.