Heinousness alone does not justify denying bail after completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in a case arising from Crime No. 111/2026, in which he was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 64, 351(2), 352 and 329(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant alleged that the petitioner forcibly had sexual intercourse with her while she was working in her land, threatened her, and that she later attempted suicide by consuming pesticide.

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 183(5) of the BNSS.

The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed. The petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than three and a half months.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in light of the allegations and the material collected by the prosecution.

2. Whether bail could be granted subject to conditions addressing the prosecution’s concerns about the petitioner’s attendance, interference with witnesses, and further offences.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

It relied on the principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment for the alleged offence.

The Court also considered whether custodial interrogation remained necessary after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the existence of prima facie material, the alleged offence’s punishment, the petitioner’s antecedents and residence, and whether appropriate conditions could address the prosecution’s concerns.

The Court acknowledged the prima facie material, including the complainant’s statement alleging forcible sexual intercourse, but noted that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was not required for further custodial interrogation.

It also considered the absence of material showing prior or similar offences, the petitioner’s local residence, and his period in judicial custody.

In the Court’s view, the seriousness of the allegations alone did not justify continued detention at the pre-trial stage, particularly when the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed through bail conditions.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation, attendance before the Magistrate and trial court when directed, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, and commission of no similar or other offence during the case. The complainant or police may seek cancellation of bail if a condition is violated.