Bail refused where accused’s conduct demonstrates persistent harassment and high risk of witness intimidation.

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail following his arrest on February 9, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 34/2026

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, who was previously known to the victim, attempted to obstruct her marriage by sending messages to her fiancé and demanding ₹1,00,000

Due to financial constraints, the victim allegedly handed over a gold chain worth ₹1,00,000 to the applicant at her wedding venue to prevent him from creating a disturbance

It is further alleged that post-marriage, the applicant continued to harass the victim by demanding marriage, making threatening calls, and sending obscene messages to her husband

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and that the investigation would be time-consuming

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the conduct of the accused

The Court applied the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges against the applicant were registered under Sections 78(2) (Stalking), 351(3) (Criminal Intimidation), and 308(5) (Extortion) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court also relied upon the evidentiary value of the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offenses and the specific allegations of blackmail and extortion.

It noted that the applicant’s conduct demonstrated a persistent "pattern of intimidation, harassment, and coercion" that continued even after the victim's marriage

The Chief Justice observed that the applicant not only extorted a gold chain through threats at the wedding venue but also persisted in sending obscene messages to the victim's husband

The Court reasoned that the "ongoing nature" of the harassment posed a significant risk; specifically, there was a "strong likelihood" that the applicant would further threaten or influence the victim and her family if released on bail

Consequently, the potential for witness interference and the severity of the alleged conduct outweighed the applicant's plea regarding the duration of his incarceration since February 9, 2026

The Court held that the applicant's conduct and the risk of witness intimidation disentitled him to discretionary relief under Section 483 of BNSS

The trial Court was granted the liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously

The Court directed the registry to communicate this order to the trial court for compliance