Prolonged incarceration due to non-appearance of prosecutrix for testimony constitutes material change in circumstances for granting bail.

The appellant was accused of enticing the prosecutrix into a physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage

Following his arrest on December 12, 2025, a charge-sheet was filed for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The appellant's first bail appeal was rejected on February 3, 2026, with instructions for an expedited trial

Subsequently, the appellant moved for a second bail application on the grounds that the trial was being delayed because the prosecutrix failed to appear for her testimony despite multiple scheduled hearings

The Special Judge, Dewas, rejected this application on May 12, 2026, leading to the present appeal

1. Whether the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, caused by the repeated non-appearance of the prosecutrix, constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail

2. Whether a consensual relationship between educated adults, followed by a breach of promise to marry, is sufficient to maintain a charge of rape and justify continued detention

The Court primarily considered Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders

It applied Sections 51(3) and 69 of the BNS, 2023 (relating to sexual intercourse by deceitful means), and Sections 3(2)(r), 3(2)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act

The court also adhered to the procedural conditions for bail under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the principle that a material change in circumstances—such as trial delay not attributable to the accused—can justify a second bail application

The Court observed that the appellant had been in custody for several months and that the trial had reached a standstill due to the prosecutrix’s failure to depose

Although the previous bail rejection was conditioned upon the recording of the victim’s statement, the Court found that the appellant should not be penalized for delays caused by the witness

The Court evaluated the appellant's argument that the relationship was consensual and between educated adults, noting that the prosecution's concerns about potential witness tampering could be mitigated through strict judicial conditions rather than continued preventive detention

Consequently, the lack of progress in the trial was deemed a sufficient "material change" to override the previous rejection

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's order dated May 13, 2026. The appellant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety, subject to conditions that he cooperate with the trial and refrain from contacting or threatening the prosecutrix