Facts
On February 12, 2026, a 17-year-old victim filed a typed complaint alleging that on the previous day, the applicant, Rahul, caught her by the neck and threatened her with death for having previously lodged a report against him and his mother
Source reference: p. 2The victim alleged the applicant attempted to drag her until her brother intervened
Source reference: p. 2Consequently, FIR No. 80/2026 was registered at Police Station Industrial Area Jaora for offences under the BNS, 2023, and the POCSO Act
Source reference: p. 1-2the applicant was arrested on February 14, 2026
Source reference: p. 2The applicant contended that the allegations were false, prompted by family pressure, and noted that he had already been granted bail in a previous case filed by the same complainant
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the allegations and the period of incarceration
Source reference: p. 12. Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing from justice if released
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the grant of bail
Source reference: p. 1The substantive charges were evaluated under Sections 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, as well as Sections 7 and 8 (Sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
Source reference: p. 1-2The court also considered procedural principles under Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the timely examination of witnesses
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offence and a criminal antecedent, the antecedent involved the same complainant and the applicant had not been convicted
Source reference: p. 2The court noted the FIR was delayed and the investigation was complete, with the final report already submitted
Source reference: p. 2It found the applicant’s contentions regarding material inconsistencies and false implication to have prima-facie merit
Source reference: p. 2Furthermore, the court emphasized the applicant’s young age (22 years) and his socio-economic status as a dependent agriculturist, which reduced the risk of him fleeing or recidivism
Source reference: p. 3Since the offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the trial would take time to conclude, the court determined that further incarceration was unnecessary
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The High Court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount
The holding is subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at hearings, a prohibition on committing further offences, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses
Source reference: p. 3-4The court clarified that any breach of these conditions would allow the trial court to consider cancellation of bail
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
RahulvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in