Grant of bail for alleged sexual assault where medical evidence is absent and victim filed no objection.

The applicant, Bhajju Singh, filed his first bail application following his arrest on October 14, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 346/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on September 30, 2025, the applicant entered the victim's house while her husband was away, dragged her into a room, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse despite being informed she was four months pregnant.

The applicant allegedly fled after threatening the victim with death upon her husband’s arrival.

The applicant contended that the FIR was a result of a dispute with the victim's husband and noted that the victim had filed a "no objection" regarding his bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the medical evidence, and the duration of custody?

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

The court also referenced Sections 64 (1), 64 (2)(h) (rape), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 332 (b) (house-trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding the charged offences.

Furthermore, the court considered Section 183 of the BNSS concerning the evidentiary value of the victim's statement recorded by a Magistrate.

The court's decision hinged on the inconsistency between the testimonial allegations and the medical evidence.

While the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS alleged rape, the court observed that there was no medical report to corroborate the claim.

Additionally, the court took significant note of the fact that the victim had filed a "no objection" before the trial court regarding the grant of bail to the applicant.

The court further considered that the charge sheet had already been filed, and since the applicant had been in custody since October 14, 2025, further detention was unnecessary as the trial was likely to take significant time to conclude.

The holding was based on the lack of medical corroboration, the victim’s "no objection," and the filing of the charge sheet.

The release was made subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during key trial stages (framing of charges/recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS), and warnings regarding the misuse of liberty under Section 209 and 269 of the BNS.