Prolonged incarceration, completed investigation, and delayed trial justify bail subject to stringent protective conditions.

Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR on 25 September 2025 before Baghmara Women Police Station alleging that the accused had attempted to rape her and, upon resistance, stabbed her with a knife and threatened to kill her and her family members.

Baghmara Women P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025 was registered under Sections 62, 74, 75(2), 79, 118(i), 109(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The accused was arrested on the same day and remained in custody for nearly one year. Investigation was completed, the chargesheet was filed, and charges were framed on 17 June 2026; however, prosecution evidence had not commenced, with the complainant’s evidence scheduled for 16 September 2026.

The accused sought bail on the grounds of prolonged custody, completion of investigation, delay in trial, and the allegedly simple nature of the injuries.

The State and the complainant opposed bail, relying on the allegations of repeated stabbing, sexual assault, threats, and the possibility of harm or intimidation if the accused were released.

Whether the accused should be enlarged on bail after prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation, filing of the chargesheet, and framing of charges, despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.

Whether appropriate bail conditions could sufficiently address the apprehension of absconding, witness tampering, or further contact with and harm to the complainant.

The Court applied the general principles governing bail, namely that continued pre-trial incarceration must be justified by the circumstances of the case and that bail may be granted where investigation is complete, the chargesheet has been filed, charges have been framed, and the accused has suffered substantial custody without attributable delay in trial.

The Court also recognised that the seriousness of the allegations and the apprehension of threats or witness tampering are relevant considerations, but that the truth and evidentiary strength of the allegations—including the alleged stabbing and the nature of the injuries—are matters for trial.

Bail may accordingly be granted subject to conditions designed to secure the accused’s presence, protect the evidence and witnesses, and safeguard the complainant.

The Court acknowledged that the allegations involved attempted sexual assault, stabbing with a knife, threats, and a charge relating to attempt to murder, making the accusations serious.

Nevertheless, it held that whether the stabbing was intentional, whether it was capable of causing death or serious injury, and the precise nature of the accused’s conduct were evidentiary matters to be determined by the Trial Court, not conclusively assessed at the bail stage.

Since the accused had been in custody since 25 September 2025, investigation had concluded, the chargesheet had been filed, charges had been framed, and the trial had not materially progressed, the Court found no sufficient reason to continue the incarceration indefinitely.

The risks identified by the prosecution and the complainant were addressed through stringent conditions prohibiting contact with the survivor, requiring relocation away from her residence, and restraining interference with evidence or witnesses.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.