Grant of Bail Where Adult Relationship is Long-Standing, Investigation is Complete, and Prosecutrix Provides No-Objection.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) in connection with FIR No. 278/2025.

The allegations involve repeated sexual assault, criminal intimidation, and physical assault under Sections 376 IPC and various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’).

The petitioner and the prosecutrix were in a relationship for approximately five years.

While the petitioner was initially granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, it was subsequently cancelled by the High Court due to concerns regarding interference with the judicial process—specifically, allegations that the petitioner attempted to influence the prosecutrix via two judicial officers.

The petitioner surrendered following the dismissal of his SLP by the Supreme Court and has been in custody since February 2026.

Investigation is largely complete with the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet already filed.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the completion of investigation and the consensual nature of the prior relationship.

2. Whether the allegations of interference with the administration of justice via third-party judicial officers (not seized of the matter) are sufficient grounds to deny liberty.

3. Whether the ‘no-objection’ and settlement expressed by the prosecutrix should influence the court’s discretion in a case involving sexual assault.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail.

It relied on the "Triple Test" for bail (flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses).

It further adhered to the principles established in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, which mandates that the object of bail is to secure the accused’s presence at trial rather than to be punitive, and that pre-trial detention should not be extended unnecessarily once the investigation is complete.

Additionally, the court considered Sections 64(1) and 69 of the BNS regarding sexual offences.

The Court observed that both parties are adults and members of the legal profession who shared a prolonged relationship.

While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations of judicial interference, the Court noted that the judicial officers involved were known to the prosecutrix personally (as her former mentors) and were not presiding over the subject case; thus, their actions did not constitute interference with the specific judicial process of this FIR.

The Court emphasized that administrative actions against such officers are independent of the petitioner’s right to bail.

Crucially, the Investigating Officer stated that no further custodial interrogation was required and all material evidence (digital and documentary) had been seized.

The Court found that since the petitioner has deep roots in society and the prosecutrix has issued a ‘no-objection’ to his release, the ‘Triple Test’ was satisfied.

The Court held that continued incarceration after the filing of chargesheets would amount to pre-trial punishment.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport, not contacting witnesses, and keeping his phone active at all times.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.