Delay in serious offense trials alone does not warrant bail, especially with victim intimidation risk.

The Applicant, Madhukant @ Madhu Rameshbhai Thadani, filed an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 11213092240329 of 2024 registered with Atkot Police Station, Rajkot Rural, for offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(f), 376D, 354A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The applicant was arrested on August 2, 2024, and has been in custody since.

His earlier bail application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 23457 of 2024) was withdrawn on February 5, 2025, as the Court was not inclined to grant discretion.

The applicant resided in a hostel and was accused, along with other co-accused, of subjecting the prosecutrix to physical abuse.

The prosecution alleged that after the FIR, the prosecutrix moved to Surat, but the applicant still attempted to approach her, administered threats, and tried to molest her.

The trial had not progressed, and charges had not been framed.

The applicant's counsel argued that the delay was due to the original complainant's approach, specifically regarding the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, which the complainant opposed despite it being the state's prerogative.

The complainant's counsel, however, stated that the complainant had to approach the High Court for the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor and later opposed a new appointment because it was "not agreeable" to her.

1. Whether the applicant, accused of serious offences including sexual assault, should be granted regular bail given the allegations of continued harassment against the prosecutrix.

2. Whether the delay in the trial's progress, including the non-framing of charges, is sufficient ground for granting bail in a case involving serious offences.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of regular bail, particularly in cases involving serious offences like sexual assault.

It considered the established precedent that delay in trial alone is not a sufficient ground for bail in offences of serious nature, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in *X v. State of Rajasthan* (2024 INSC 909).

The Court considered the severity of the allegations, specifically offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(f), 376D, 354A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

It placed significant weight on the observations made by the Sessions Court that the applicant attempted to approach, threaten, and molest the prosecutrix even after she relocated to Surat subsequent to the FIR.

This conduct led the Court to conclude that the prosecutrix's security could be jeopardized if bail were granted.

Regarding the argument of trial delay, the Court explicitly cited the Supreme Court's ruling in *X v. State of Rajasthan*, stating that delay in trial for serious offences cannot, on its own, be a ground for granting bail.

The Court found that despite the non-progression of the trial and non-framing of charges, the serious nature of the allegations and the demonstrated attempts to influence/harm the prosecutrix outweighed the delay.

The Court held that no case was made out for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant, primarily due to the serious nature of the allegations and the specific concerns regarding the safety and security of the prosecutrix, as evidenced by the applicant's alleged attempts to approach and threaten her after the FIR.