Bail granted where major victim’s conduct and delayed FIR suggest consensual relationship despite marriage pretext.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), following his arrest on January 24, 2026, for alleged offenses under Sections 296, 351(2), 64(2)(m), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecutrix, a divorcee and mother of three, alleged that the applicant established sexual relations with her between June 2025 and November 2025 under a false pretext of marriage while concealing his existing marriage.

The victim further alleged that upon discovery of the fraud, the applicant and his wife harassed and blackmailed her.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was lodged with a seven-month delay after the relationship failed to materialize into marriage.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the procedural status of the trial.

The Court considered Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

It assessed the provisions of the BNS, specifically Section 64(2)(m) (rape) and Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means/false promise of marriage).

The Court also applied the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is unwarranted when the investigation is complete (charge-sheet filed) and the trial is unlikely to conclude speedily.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix is a major and a divorcee with three children, suggesting a level of maturity and understanding.

It noted a significant delay of approximately seven months in lodging the FIR, which supported the applicant’s contention that the relationship was initially consensual.

The Court emphasized that the charge-sheet had already been filed, indicating that the applicant's custodial interrogation was no longer required for investigation.

Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant had been in detention since January 24, 2026, and that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

Balancing the gravity of the allegations against the period of detention and the consensual elements of the history between the parties, the Court found the applicant eligible for bail.

The High Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant (identified as Ashutosh Nayak in the operative part) on a personal bond with two sureties.

The Court imposed several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a mandate for presence at key trial stages (framing of charges, recording of statements), and strict compliance with Section 269 and 209 of the BNS regarding presence and non-abscondence.