Grant of regular bail for outraging modesty where financial transactions suggest potential misuse of legal process.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS following his arrest for alleged offenses under Sections 74, 75, 78, 296, 126(2), and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on February 12, 2026, the applicant abused the victim, wrongfully restrained her, and touched her chest with the intent to outrage her modesty.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to a soured relationship and that the victim lodged the F.I.R. after he refused her unlawful monetary demands, evidenced by bank statements of prior PhonePe transfers.

The charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the allegations, the medical evidence, and the claim of false implication due to a personal dispute?

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

Substantive charges were examined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 75 (Sexual harassment), 78 (Stalking), 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 126(2) (Wrongful restraint), and 79 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman).

The court also referred to the procedural weight of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to the former Section 164 CrPC) and the necessity of personal presence under Sections 269, 84, and 351 of the BNSS.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the evidence of a prior relationship and the applicant’s claim of extortion.

It noted that the applicant had provided Annexure A-2, consisting of bank statements showing financial transfers to the victim, which supported the defense's theory that the F.I.R. was retaliatory following the applicant's refusal to fulfill further demands.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the medical report did not corroborate the prosecution's case and that the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS, when viewed alongside the filing of the charge-sheet, suggested that further pre-trial detention was unnecessary.

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete and the trial would take considerable time, the applicant did not pose a risk that outweighed his right to liberty.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing (unless excused), and must comply with specific procedural milestones such as the framing of charges and recording of statements. Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.