Consensual relationship with major and unexplained FIR delay warrant bail in rape prosecution.

The applicant was arrested on 27.10.2025 in connection with Crime No. 124/2025 for allegedly committing rape

The victim alleged that on 09.08.2025, while staying at the applicant's house, he committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will under the pretext of marriage and detained her for two days

The victim eventually informed her father, and an FIR was lodged on 02.09.2025

The applicant contended that the victim is a major and that the relationship was consensual, resulting in a "false implication" only after the relationship failed to materialize

The investigation has concluded, and the charge-sheet has been filed

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations and the period of detention

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the completion of the investigation mitigate the necessity for continued custodial interrogation

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governing the grant of regular bail

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relating to the punishment for rape

Procedurally, the court invoked Section 269 of the BNS regarding non-attendance in obedience to an order and Section 209 of the BNS regarding failure to appear in court as conditional requirements for bail

The court noted that the victim is a major and the evidence suggests the parties had a consensual relationship that subsequently broke down

A critical factor in the court’s reasoning was the unexplained delay in filing the FIR—the incident allegedly occurred on 09.08.2025, but the report was not lodged until 02.09.2025—which created doubt regarding the prosecution’s version

As the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, the court found that no further custodial interrogation was required

Considering the applicant’s incarceration since 27.10.2025 and the likelihood that the trial would be prolonged, the court determined that continued detention was unnecessary

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present [para. 8(i)], must appear on all trial dates [para. 8(ii)], and must strictly comply with procedural mandates under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS to avoid revocation of bail