Failure to furnish grounds of arrest supports bail; incomplete investigation alone cannot justify continued custody.

The appellant was accused of forcibly having sexual intercourse with the complainant on 13 August 2026, while a second accused allegedly restrained and assaulted her when she cried for help.

The complaint was registered for offences under Sections 64(1), 126 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and (ii), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The complainant reportedly informed her husband on 18 August and identified the appellant thereafter; she had stated that she did not know him.

After the Sessions Court refused regular bail on 17 September 2026, the appellant appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The complainant was served but did not appear.

The appeal was considered under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the bail order.

The alleged offences were under Sections 64(1), 126 and 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and (ii), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court applied the general bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and reasoned that incomplete investigation alone is not sufficient to refuse bail absent a special ground.

It also treated the absence of material showing that the grounds of arrest had been furnished to the appellant as a factor supporting bail.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court considered the allegations serious and found that the complaint and prosecution papers disclosed a prima facie case against the appellant; it also noted that the investigation was incomplete.

It nevertheless held that those circumstances did not, by themselves, justify continued custody.

The appellant’s submission that the complainant did not know him and identified him after informing her husband was treated as a matter for consideration at the bail stage, while the Court found no material establishing the appellant’s prior criminal antecedents.

On the SC/ST Act allegations, the Court reasoned that, because the complainant said she did not know the appellant, there was no basis at that stage to disbelieve his contention concerning the alleged caste-related offences.

It further relied on the lack of material showing that grounds of arrest had been furnished and concluded that any prosecution concerns could be addressed by imposing conditions.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation and trial, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, and no commission of similar or other offences during the case; breach would result in cancellation of bail.