01Facts
The appellant sought regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in a case registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that on 26 January 2026 the appellant sexually assaulted the victim after offering her a ride; she lodged the FIR on 28 January 2026
¶ 2The appellant relied on the two-day delay in reporting, the absence of external injuries, and the filing of the charge-sheet; he had been in custody since 24 February 2026
¶ 3The State opposed bail, and the victim objected to the appellant’s release
¶ 4–5After hearing the parties and examining the case diary, the Court considered the bail application
¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the appellant should be granted regular bail pending trial, having regard to the allegations, the circumstances relied on by the defence, and the procedural stage of the case
¶ 3–7ii.2. If bail were granted, what conditions should govern the appellant’s release
¶ 803Law Applied
The application was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, and the charges were under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
¶ 1The Court applied its discretion to grant bail by considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences alongside the case-specific circumstances, including the reporting delay, the medical examination report, completion of the investigation and the appellant’s period in custody
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 183
04Reasoning
The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s opposition against the circumstances raised in support of bail: the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident; the defence asserted that the appellant and victim had been seen together before the report was made; the medical report was considered; the charge-sheet had been filed; and the appellant had remained in custody since 24 February 2026
¶ 3–4, 7Without expressing any view on the merits, the Court concluded that these circumstances justified release on bail despite the victim’s objection
¶ 5, 705Holding
The Court allowed the bail application.
¶ 8It directed the appellant’s release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fairness of the trial and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial court until disposal of the case.
¶ 8Original Court PDF
BAL SINGHvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
