Bail granted where FIR lacked allegations of penetrative assault and evidentiary support for criminal intimidation.

The prosecutrix alleged that after developing a friendship, the petitioner threatened to circulate a video of her, forcibly lived in her apartment, and physically assaulted her on multiple occasions in February 2025.

Specific allegations included being hit in Meerut, having her clothes torn, being forced to spit and lick, and being recorded in an "obscene video" under threats.

The petitioner has been in custody since 17.03.2026.

The Investigating Officer (IO) reported that a forensic examination of the petitioner’s phone yielded no objectionable content, and an audio recording submitted by the prosecutrix contained no admission of guilt by the petitioner.

1. Whether the accused is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected during the investigation.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 64(1) (punishment for rape), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 138 (abduction), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation).

General principles governing the grant of bail, focusing on the gravity of the offence, the presence of a prima facie case, the duration of custody, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or threatening the complainant.

The Court noted that while the FIR was registered under various sections including Section 64(1) BNS, both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned APP admitted there was no allegation of forced penetrative assault or sexual intercourse in the FIR.

The Court observed significant evidentiary gaps; specifically, the IO found no objectionable videos or photos on the petitioner’s seized mobile phone, and the audio recording provided by the prosecutrix failed to corroborate her claims of an admission of guilt.

Weighing these factors against the petitioner’s period of incarceration since March 2026, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted, provided that the prosecutrix’s safety concerns were addressed through stringent conditions.

The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the petitioner subject to a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount, with a specific order not to contact the prosecutrix.