Bail granted where prior consensual relationship, unexplained FIR delay, completed investigation, and prolonged trial reduced custodial necessity.

The appellant challenged the order dated 2 July 2026 by which the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act, Bastar, rejected his application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 174/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur.

The prosecution alleged that between 21 and 22 August 2025, the appellant sexually assaulted the 26-year-old prosecutrix in a hotel room at Jagdalpur and recorded video clips of the incident.

The FIR was lodged on 24 January 2026; during investigation, the prosecutrix’s statement and social-status certificate were obtained, and the appellant was arrested.

The appellant contended that he and the prosecutrix had been in a relationship since meeting through social media in 2023, that the relationship was consensual, and that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him to the hotel.

He relied upon the eight-month delay in lodging the FIR, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 14 June 2026.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the appellant knew the prosecutrix belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and that the allegations constituted serious offences under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 3(ll)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecutrix appeared through video conferencing and objected to the grant of bail.

Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the allegations under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 3(ll)(v) of the SC/ST Act?

Whether the alleged consensual relationship, the parties’ asserted love affair, the eight-month delay in lodging the FIR, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the appellant’s period of custody justified interference with the rejection of bail?

What conditions were necessary to secure the appellant’s presence and prevent misuse of bail during trial?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the order rejecting bail.

It considered the appellant’s entitlement to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, while taking into account the nature and seriousness of the alleged offences under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 3(ll)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The governing bail considerations applied by the Court included the apparent circumstances of the relationship, the unexplained delay in reporting, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, and the need to impose conditions ensuring the accused’s attendance and preventing obstruction of proceedings.

The Court considered the defence claim that the appellant and the prosecutrix had been in a relationship since 2023 and that she had voluntarily accompanied him to the hotel.

It further attached significance to the eight-month delay in lodging the FIR, which, according to the Court, had not been satisfactorily explained.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court also noted that investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the appellant had remained in custody since 14 June 2026, making prolonged pre-trial detention relevant because the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing these factors against the seriousness of the allegations and the prosecutrix’s objection, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail, subject to stringent conditions relating to attendance, adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for misuse of liberty.

The appellant, Ravi Kumar Rajbhar, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on every date either personally or through counsel, to appear personally during opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and permitted the trial court to take action in accordance with law in the event of absence, non-compliance, or misuse of bail.

The trial court was requested to endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.