Bail granted where sexual relationship appeared consensual and forensic analysis found no incriminating images or videos.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 760/2025, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, registered under Sections 64(1) and 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecutrix, aged about 19 years, alleged that she came into contact with the applicant through Instagram and thereafter met him on several occasions. She alleged that, after being taken to hotels in Delhi and Jind, the applicant raped her on multiple occasions, clicked her nude photographs and videos, and threatened to circulate them.

The complaint was lodged on 30 September 2025, and the applicant had been in custody since 18 February 2026.

The co-accused Sahil had been granted bail, while co-accused Arman had been charge-sheeted without arrest.

The forensic examination of the applicant’s mobile phone did not reveal any objectionable photographs or videos of the prosecutrix.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, the period of custody, and the forensic material collected by the investigating agency.

Whether the allegations, viewed at the stage of bail, prima facie indicated consensual sexual relations and whether the absence of objectionable photographs or videos on the applicant’s phone materially supported grant of bail.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 64(1) and 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and applied the ordinary principles governing grant of regular bail, including an assessment of the prima facie case, the evidentiary material collected, the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s period of incarceration, and relevant parity with co-accused.

The Court also recognised that its observations at the bail stage were provisional and that the trial court was required to independently assess whether the sexual relationship was consensual on the basis of the evidence led at trial.

No precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that, for the limited purpose of deciding bail, the surrounding circumstances appeared to indicate a consensual sexual relationship, while expressly leaving the final determination to the trial court.

The Court attached significance to the fact that forensic examination of the applicant’s mobile phone did not reveal the alleged nude photographs or videos, which constituted the principal basis of the alleged blackmail and intimidation.

Although the prosecutrix disputed this conclusion and alleged that she had seen the material on the applicant’s phone, the Court noted that no explanation had been offered for her refusal to submit her own phone for forensic examination.

Considering these circumstances, the applicant’s custody since 18 February 2026, the grant of bail to co-accused Sahil, and the absence of objectionable material on the applicant’s phone, the Court found no sufficient reason to deny him further liberty.

The Court directed the applicant’s release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

The Court clarified that its prima facie observation regarding consensual sexual relations would not bind the trial court, which must independently decide the issue on the evidence presented at trial.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the applicant.