Bail granted where the record indicated a consensual relationship and prolonged custody with trial likely to be delayed.

The appellant was arrested in Crime No. 12/2026 registered at Mahila Thana, Kawardha, for offences under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The complainant, a major woman aged approximately 24 years, alleged that the appellant, whom she had known since 2021–2022 as a fellow performer in a folk-art group, established a romantic relationship with her and repeatedly had sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage.

The FIR was registered on 29 April 2026.

During investigation, the complainant was medically examined, her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the offences under the SC/ST Act were subsequently added.

The appellant’s earlier bail application before the High Court was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh; his subsequent bail application before the Special Court was dismissed on 13 July 2026.

At the time of consideration, the appellant had remained in custody since 30 April 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the nature of the allegations and the offences invoked under the BNS and the SC/ST Act?

Whether the complainant’s status as a major and the alleged consensual relationship, together with the appellant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the likelihood of delay in trial, justified setting aside the Special Court’s order rejecting bail?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the Special Court’s order refusing bail.

The bail determination was considered in light of Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the power to grant regular bail, along with the alleged offences under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court applied the settled bail considerations of the apparent nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available at the stage of bail, the accused’s period of custody, completion of investigation and likelihood of an early conclusion of trial.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and considered the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

However, it noted that the complainant was a major and that the appellant and complainant had been acquainted since 2021–2022 and had been in a relationship involving repeated sexual relations, which the Court treated, at the bail stage, as indicating consent.

The Court further took into account that the appellant had been in custody since 30 April 2026, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s objection and the complainant’s opposition to bail, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was not justified and that the Special Court’s rejection of bail required interference.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to conditions including non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present, regular appearance before the trial court, compliance with proceedings relating to proclamation and non-appearance, and personal presence at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The trial court was requested to endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within six months, subject to there being no legal impediment.