Recording of material witness testimony and absence of criminal history warrant grant of regular bail.

The applicant, a 20-year-old labourer, was accused of abducting a 19-year-old victim and subsequently assaulting her.

Following these allegations, an FIR was registered at Police Station Maksi, District Shajapur, for offences punishable under Sections 87, 115(2), 351(3), 127(3), and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since October 8, 2025.

This was the applicant’s second bail application; the first was withdrawn with liberty to renew after the victim's testimony.

The victim (PW-1) was examined by the trial court on February 24, 2026.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and he was falsely implicated due to pressure from the victim’s family.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the recording of the victim's evidence and considering his period of incarceration.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with discretionary power to grant regular bail.

The court also considered the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail.

Additionally, the court evaluated the necessity of continued incarceration against the applicant's socio-economic status, age, and lack of criminal antecedents to determine the risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The court observed that the primary prosecution witness, the victim (PW-1), had already been examined, significantly diminishing the risk of the applicant tampering with material evidence.

Upon reviewing the victim's cross-examination, the court noted that the applicant's claim of a consensual relationship possessed prima facie merit.

The court took into account the applicant's youth (20 years old), his profession as a labourer, and his clean criminal record as factors suggesting he was unlikely to flee the process of law or commit further offences.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the co-accused, Amjad, had already been extended the benefit of bail.

Given that the trial was expected to consume more time, the court concluded that continued jail incarceration would cause undue hardship to the applicant.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The grant of bail was subject to specific conditions, including mandatory attendance at all court hearings, a prohibition against committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against inducing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

The court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the final merits of the trial.