Presence of Corroborative Evidence and Risk of Witness Intimidation Prevail Over Plea of Alibi in Bail Application

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 637/2025 involving charges under Sections 64(1) (rape) and 351(3) (extortion/blackmailing) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant, after gaining her trust by promising a government job, drugged her at a hotel on October 17, 2025, sexually assaulted her, and recorded an objectionable video to blackmail her.

The applicant was arrested on December 23, 2025, and was directed to surrender after his interim bail was dismissed by the Trial Court on March 30, 2026.

The applicant contended that the case was a malicious fabrication following a dispute over a mistaken bank transfer and argued a plea of alibi based on mobile location records.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected during the investigation.

2. Whether the plea of alibi and technical discrepancies in the investigation are sufficient to override the prima facie case established by the prosecution.

The court applied Section 64(1) and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, regarding punishment for rape and extortion.

It also considered Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the recording of statements by a Magistrate.

The court's reasoning was guided by established bail principles, which require a balance between the gravity of the offence, the strength of the prima facie evidence, the necessity of custodial interrogation for recovery of evidence (Samsung Fold phone), and the risk of witness intimidation.

The court found that prima facie evidence supports the prosecutrix's allegations, as hotel registers, invoices, and manager statements placed both parties in the same hotel rooms on the relevant dates.

The court rejected the applicant’s plea of alibi, noting that the existence of a second mobile phone (Samsung Fold) mentioned by the prosecutrix explained why the applicant’s primary CDR might show a different location.

The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed that the applicant’s phone contained photographs of the prosecutrix and numerous obscene videos.

The court emphasized that a crucial piece of evidence—the phone used to record the incident—remained unrecovered and that the identity of an accomplice ("Sardar Ji") was still unknown.

Additionally, the court took serious note of allegations that the applicant had threatened the prosecutrix during the pendency of the bail application.

It held that given the gravity of the charges, the incriminating material recovered, the need for further recovery of evidence, and the risk of witness intimidation, regular bail could not be granted.

The applicant was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within three days.