Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Rape Accused, Citing Months-Long Relationship, His Demand To Recover Money And Filed Chargesheet

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant should be granted bail pending trial, having regard to the allegations, the parties’ relationship, the appellant’s custody and antecedents, and completion of the investigation.

The court held

The appeal was allowed and the Special Judge’s order dated 17 August 2026 was set aside.

It also directed

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

The Court also urged the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

01Facts

The appellant sought bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the Special Judge’s rejection of his application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

¶ 1

He was charged under Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the BNS, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that he sexually exploited the victim and threatened to circulate objectionable videos of her.

¶ 2

The appellant claimed that they had been in a relationship, that the FIR followed a dispute over repayment of money, and that the investigation was complete; he had been in custody since 3 June 2026. He also had one prior Excise Act antecedent.

¶ 3

The State opposed bail, and the victim and her father objected to its grant.

¶ 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant should be granted bail pending trial, having regard to the allegations, the parties’ relationship, the appellant’s custody and antecedents, and completion of the investigation.

¶ 3–7

ii.Whether the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail should be set aside.

¶ 1, 7–8

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, challenging the rejection of a bail application made under Section 483 of the BNSS.

¶ 1

The charged offences were Sections 64, 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

¶ 1–2

The Court applied no cited precedent and did not set out a separate doctrinal test for bail; it assessed the circumstances of the case, including the victim’s age, the relationship alleged by the parties, the appellant’s antecedent, custody, and the likely duration of trial.

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Section 84 Section 351

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64 Section 351 Section 269 Section 209

04Reasoning

The Court considered that the victim was 22 years old, that the appellant and victim had been in a relationship from June 2025 until 15 February 2026, and that the FIR followed a dispute in which the appellant sought repayment of money.

¶ 7

It also noted that the appellant’s sole antecedent was under the Excise Act, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had remained in custody since 3 June 2026, while trial was likely to take time.

¶ 3, 7

On those factors, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court found bail appropriate.

¶ 7