Completed investigation and six months’ custody supported regular bail in an apparently consensual relationship case.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for alleged offences under Sections 64, 69, 351(2) and 115(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66(E), 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The complainant, aged 23, alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her after promising to marry her, recorded the act without her knowledge, and later threatened to circulate the video; she also alleged assault and intimidation after he refused to marry her.

The FIR, initially registered at Konanakunte Police Station, was transferred to Magadi Police Station for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner was arrested on 9 March 2026; after investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, his bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 21 April 2026.

The High Court recorded that the parties had been in a relationship for a considerable period and that the petitioner had been in custody for six months.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of the allegations, the completed investigation and the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether appropriate conditions could adequately address the concerns arising from the allegations while the petitioner remained on bail.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 64, 69, 351(2) and 115(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66(E), 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court’s stated considerations were the parties’ relationship, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the petitioner’s period in custody; it cited no precedent.

The Court noted that the complainant and petitioner had been in a relationship for a considerable period and had engaged in sexual intercourse, and observed that they appeared to have fallen out before the complainant approached the police.

It also took account of the completed investigation, the filed charge-sheet and the petitioner’s recorded period in custody. On those circumstances, the Court found that regular bail was warranted, subject to conditions intended to secure the petitioner’s attendance and prevent witness interference or similar offending.