Prior complaint’s omission of false-promise allegations weakened the prosecution case and supported bail.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, the prior police complaint, and the status of the investigation.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail in Crime No. 247/2026, subject to conditions: execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; regular attendance before the Trial Court unless exempted; no threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses; no involvement in similar offences; and no leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.

01Facts

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 247/2026 of Chandra Layout Police Station, registered under Sections 69, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the operative order describes the charges as Sections 308, 351(2) and 69 BNS.

pp. 2–3, 8–9

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, a married co-worker, promised to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her, retained private images and videos, and later threatened to circulate them.

pp. 5–6

She had previously approached the same police station on 6 June 2024 concerning the images and videos; an NCR was registered and later closed.

pp. 5–6

The petitioner maintained that the relationship was consensual and the complaint was false. The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed; the Sessions Court had rejected his bail application.

pp. 3–4, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, the prior police complaint, and the status of the investigation.

pp. 3–4, 7–8

ii.2. Whether the allegation that the petitioner threatened to circulate the complainant’s private images and videos materially weighed against bail, where the police had not invoked any offence under the Information Technology Act.

p. 8

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the High Court with jurisdiction to grant bail.

p. 2

In considering regular bail, the Court assessed the nature of the allegations and available case material, the stage of the investigation, and the maximum punishment stated for the alleged offences.

p. 8

The order cites no precedent and does not set out a broader doctrinal test.

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69 Section 308 Section 351

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

04Reasoning

The Court considered the first information and charge sheet as indicating a consensual relationship, while noting that the complainant had approached the police in 2024 without making the later allegations of deception concerning the petitioner’s marital status or a false promise of marriage.

pp. 5–7

It also observed that the complainant’s earlier account stated that the petitioner had deleted the private images and videos at the police station, making the subsequent threat allegation difficult to accept at the bail stage.

pp. 6–7

Although the complainant alleged that the images and videos had been circulated, no Information Technology Act offence had been invoked; the investigation was complete, and the Court also considered the stated maximum punishment of ten years.

p. 8

On those circumstances, it found bail justified, without finally determining the merits of the allegations.

p. 8