01Facts
The petitioner, the sole accused, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in Crime No. 110/2026, registered for an offence under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2, 4The allegation was that on 10 May 2026, he forcibly took the 65-year-old complainant into his house and sexually assaulted her.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2, 4The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed. The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the charge and the material collected, including the victim’s medical report.
pp. 3, 5–6 · ¶ 3, 5, 802Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence alleged under Section 64 BNS.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–10ii.2. Whether the completion of the investigation, the petitioner’s local residence, and the absence of material showing prior offences supported release on bail subject to conditions.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8–1003Law Applied
Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–10The Court treated the nature and punishment of the alleged offence, the need for further custodial interrogation, the accused’s roots in the jurisdiction, any indication of antecedents, and the possibility of addressing prosecution concerns through conditions as relevant considerations in deciding bail.
pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–10The Court noted that Section 64 BNS, as applicable to the charge alleged, carried a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years, extendable to twenty years, but was not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
p. 5 · ¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64
04Reasoning
The Court considered the alleged offence serious and declined to determine the petitioner’s innocence or resolve discrepancies between witness statements at the bail stage.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5–6However, it reasoned that the charge-sheet had been filed and custodial interrogation was no longer required; continued pre-trial detention should not serve as punishment, even where a prima facie case exists.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8The petitioner was a permanent resident within the jurisdiction, and the State had produced no material showing prior similar or other offences. The Court held that the State’s apprehensions could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9–1005Holding
The Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail in Crime No. 110/2026 upon executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.
p. 7 · ¶ 11Bail was subject to conditions requiring him to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, appear before the Magistrate and trial court as directed, refrain from tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation, and commit no similar or other offence during the pendency of the case. Breach of any condition would result in cancellation of bail.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 11Original Court PDF
SHANKAR @ SHANKAR RAOvsTHE STATE THROUGH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
