Omission of rape allegations from an earlier complaint raised doubt warranting regular bail after investigation was complete.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 64(2), 85, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2022.

The case arose from a complaint dated 17 March 2026; after surrendering, the petitioner was remanded to custody. The investigation was completed and a charge sheet filed against him and his mother. His bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected.

The petitioner relied on a marriage certificate showing that his marriage to the complainant was registered on 18 June 2025 and on her earlier police complaint, dated 22 July 2025, which alleged mistreatment during pregnancy but did not allege rape or forced conversion. She later asked the police to close that complaint, stating that the couple had decided to live together.

The complainant opposed bail, alleging sexual assault, forced conversion and mistreatment.

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in light of the completed investigation, his period in custody and the material concerning the complainant’s earlier complaint and the marriage registration.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s powers concerning bail.

The charged offences were under Sections 64(2), 85, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2022.

The order identifies no precedent or separately articulated bail test; it assesses the case-specific circumstances, including the status of the investigation, the apparent strength of the allegations and the petitioner’s custody.

The Court noted that the marriage certificate recorded the marriage on 18 June 2025, whereas the complainant’s account was that she converted on 22 June 2025 because the petitioner had refused to marry her unless she converted.

It also observed that her earlier complaint, made before the period to which the later rape allegations related, did not contain those allegations. These circumstances raised a serious doubt, for the purpose of the bail application, about the allegations attracting Section 64 of the BNS.

The Court further considered that the investigation was complete, the petitioner had been in custody for six months, and the other charged offences were triable by a Magistrate with a maximum punishment of seven years.

On those combined circumstances, it found that bail should be granted.

The petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like sum and comply with conditions concerning attendance, non-interference with witnesses, avoidance of similar offences and remaining within the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.