Bail Granted Where the Victim’s Statement Made No Specific Allegation Against the Accused

The petitioner, accused No. 3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from Crime No. 3/2025 of Gadag Women Police Station and pending as Spl. C. No. 65/2025.

The prosecution alleged that, after accused Nos. 1 and 2 had sexually assaulted and trafficked the victim, the petitioner sexually assaulted her on three occasions on the promise of marriage.

The petitioner denied the allegations and relied on the victim’s Section 183 BNSS statement, in which he submitted she had not specifically implicated him.

The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed; the petitioner remained in judicial custody.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the allegations, available material, and relevant bail considerations.

2. Whether the risk of witness tampering or interference with the trial warranted refusal of bail.

The Court considered its regular-bail jurisdiction under Section 483 BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

In exercising that discretion, it identified the nature and gravity of the allegations, severity of the possible punishment, the likelihood of absconding, the petitioner’s character and antecedents, and the risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses as relevant considerations.

The Court also noted that the alleged offences were not punishable by death or imprisonment for life.

The Court acknowledged the allegations of aggravated and penetrative sexual assault against the petitioner on three occasions and the broader allegations of human trafficking.

It nevertheless noted that the victim’s Section 183 BNSS statement did not specifically state anything against the petitioner, although it described the roles of accused Nos. 1 and 2.

Considering that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the alleged offences were not punishable by death or life imprisonment, the Court concluded that bail was appropriate, subject to conditions addressing attendance, further offending, and witness interference.

Bail was subject to conditions that he not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, attend the trial court as required, and not commit similar or other offences; breach could result in an application for cancellation of bail.