Bail granted where prosecutrix avoided opposing proceedings and evidence failed to connect accused with the alleged offence.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 278/2025 registered at Police Station Dwarka North for offences under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the prosecutrix met the petitioner through Instagram two or three days before the incident, travelled approximately 35 kilometres to meet him on the night of 26–27 July 2025, and was taken by the petitioner and co-accused Deshraj to a forest area, where both allegedly raped her.

It was further alleged that the petitioner recorded the incident on his mobile phone.

The prosecutrix did not appear before the Court or through counsel despite notice and allegedly avoided contact with the Investigating Officer. The Court therefore inferred that she was not interested in opposing the bail application.

The petitioner had been in custody since 27 July 2025. The chargesheet had been filed and the case was pending for consideration of charge.

The co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, while the prosecutrix’s identification proceedings concerning the co-accused had failed and no Test Identification Parade had been conducted for the petitioner.

The Investigating Officer showed the Court two video clips depicting an unclothed woman in a forest at night. The clips did not depict the alleged rape or the petitioner’s presence, and the FSL report concerning the origin and connection of the clips was still pending.

The call-detail-record analysis also did not reveal telephonic connectivity between the petitioner and the prosecutrix.

1. Whether, in view of the prosecutrix’s failure to oppose the bail application, the nature of the available material, the absence of identification proceedings, and the pending FSL report, the petitioner should be granted regular bail?

2. Whether the petitioner’s antecedents and the seriousness of the allegations justified his continued detention despite the filing of the chargesheet and his prolonged custody?

The Court applied the statutory framework under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351 and 3(5) of the BNS, under which the petitioner was prosecuted.

It exercised the judicial discretion governing grant of regular bail by assessing the prima facie material, the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner’s period of custody, the stage of investigation and trial, the status of the chargesheet, the possibility of interference with witnesses, and the overall circumstances of the case.

The Court also applied the principle that observations made while deciding bail are provisional and must not prejudice the parties at trial.

The Court considered that the prosecutrix’s persistent non-appearance and reluctance to engage with the Investigating Officer indicated that she was not opposing the petitioner’s release.

It found substance in the petitioner’s contention that the prosecution version did not inspire confidence, particularly because the video clips did not show the alleged rape or the petitioner at the scene, and the FSL report had not established their source or connection with him.

The Court further noted that no Test Identification Parade had been conducted for the petitioner despite the prosecutrix allegedly having met him only once or twice before the incident, while the identification proceedings relating to the co-accused had failed.

The absence of telephonic connectivity between the petitioner and the prosecutrix also weighed in his favour.

Although the State relied on the gravity of the offence and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the Court noted that he was already on bail in those cases and had been acquitted in three of them.

Since the chargesheet had been filed, the FSL report would take time, and the petitioner had remained in custody since 27 July 2025, the Court held that continued incarceration was not justified at that stage.

He was specifically directed not to contact any prosecution witness in any manner.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of bail and would not prejudice either side before the Trial Court, which was required to independently assess the evidence at the final stage.