Bail granted where the principal sexual-assault allegation was against a co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 70/2026, registered for offences under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Kamil Yadav had sexual relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage, resulting in pregnancy, and that the applicant and other family members assaulted her.

Medical documents indicated that the victim was pregnant and later underwent medical termination of pregnancy.

The applicant relied on completion of the investigation, his detention since 30 July 2026, the likely duration of trial, and bail granted to three co-accused.

The State opposed bail, citing the allegations of assault and the medical records.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, his criminal antecedent, the progress of the investigation, and the circumstances of the co-accused.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The applicant was charged under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

The Court identified no precedent or further legal test; it assessed bail by considering the case circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedent, completion of the investigation, period of detention, anticipated duration of trial, and parity with co-accused.

The Court acknowledged the applicant’s live criminal antecedent relating to offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 452 of the IPC.

It nevertheless considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 30 July 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The Court also noted that the principal allegation of sexual assault was against Kamil Yadav and that three co-accused had already been granted bail.

On balance, and without expressing any view on the merits, it found bail appropriate.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial court until conclusion of trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial court’s decision on the merits.