Bail granted where the relationship appeared consensual and no caste-based motive was alleged.

The victim, aged about 19, alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted her on the pretext of marriage between 5 March and 28 May 2026, resulting in pregnancy, and later refused to marry her.

An FIR was registered for offences under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) cited in the judgment as Section 3(ll)(va).

The Special Judge rejected the appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the appellant appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant relied on the alleged consensual relationship, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 17 June 2026.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and a pending prior case involving similar allegations; the victim also objected to bail.

1. Whether the appellant should be granted bail, having regard to the nature of the relationship, the victim’s age, the allegations, the appellant’s custody, and the stage of the proceedings.

2. Whether the allegation under the SC/ST Act warranted refusal of bail where the Court found no allegation that the offence was committed because of the victim’s caste or tribal status.

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the Special Judge’s order, while Section 483 of the BNSS is the provision under which the appellant sought regular bail.

The Court assessed bail on the circumstances before it, including the apparent nature of the relationship, the completion of investigation, the period of custody, and the likely time required for trial.

In considering the SC/ST Act allegation, the Court addressed whether the material alleged that the offence was committed on account of the victim’s caste or tribal identity.

The judgment cites no precedent.

The Court considered the parties’ relationship to have begun in 2021 and, at the bail stage, viewed it as apparently consensual, noting that the pending prior case involved similar allegations by the same victim.

It also considered the victim to be a major, found no allegation that the offence was committed because of her tribal status, and took account of the charge-sheet having been filed, the appellant’s custody since 17 June 2026, and the expected duration of trial.

Although the State relied on the pending antecedent and the victim opposed bail, the Court concluded that the overall circumstances justified release, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The appellant was granted bail on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions requiring attendance, non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at specified trial stages, and consequences for misuse of bail or non-appearance.

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