Prolonged pre-trial custody and trial delay warranted bail despite serious allegations.

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in a case alleging offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(k), 115(2), 352 and 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complaint alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly subjected the victim to forcible sexual intercourse, resulting in pregnancy; the victim’s mother lodged the complaint on 28 June 2025.

After an earlier bail petition was dismissed with liberty to renew the application upon production of the DNA report, the petitioner applied to the trial court, which rejected bail on 12 August 2026.

The DNA report stated that the petitioner was excluded as the biological father of the baby.

By the time of this petition, the petitioner had been in custody since 29 June 2025, the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed; although charges had been framed on 18 March 2026, no prosecution witness had been examined.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of the DNA report, the completion of investigation and the period of custody.

2. Whether the prosecution’s concerns about witness tampering and interference with the proceedings could be adequately addressed through bail conditions.

Section 483 BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of the bail application.

The alleged offences were those specified in Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(k), 115(2), 352 and 351(2), read with Section 3(5) BNS.

The Court applied the principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception” and considered relevant bail factors, including the stage of investigation, duration of custody, progress of trial, and whether risks to the proceedings could be controlled by conditions.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court did not treat the DNA report as conclusive proof that no sexual intercourse had occurred, and it declined to determine the petitioner’s innocence at the bail stage.

It nevertheless considered the report in the overall bail assessment, alongside the petitioner’s custody of approximately one year and three months, the completed investigation and filed charge sheet, and the absence of any prosecution-witness examination for more than six months after charges were framed.

Given the prospect of delay in trial and the petitioner’s residence within the trial court’s jurisdiction, the Court found that the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed by imposing conditions requiring attendance, non-interference and good conduct.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the petitioner to attend and assist the trial court, refrain from tampering with witnesses or hampering the proceedings, and commit no similar or other offence during the case; breach would result in cancellation of bail.