Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where custodial interrogation was complete and trial likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 512/2026 registered at Police Station Surajpur for an offence punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 6 July 2026 at approximately 6:00 p.m., the applicant forcibly took the major victim into his house and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The FIR was lodged on 13 July 2026, the applicant was arrested on 14 July 2026, and the charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

The applicant relied upon alleged previous enmity, the location and timing of the incident, the absence of an alarm, and medical evidence showing no recent sexual intercourse or injuries. He also contended that the trial would take considerable time and that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the allegations were specific, serious, and supported by the material collected during investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the allegation under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the status of the victim as a major woman, the material collected during investigation, the necessity of further custodial interrogation, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegation against the circumstances relevant to pre-trial release. It noted that the victim was a major woman, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that continued custodial interrogation was therefore unnecessary.

The Court also took into account the defence submissions concerning the medical evidence, the applicant’s custody since 14 July 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time. Without making a final assessment of the prosecution evidence or commenting on the merits, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

The release was subject to conditions, including no unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, appearance before the trial court, compliance with proceedings concerning absence or misuse of bail, and mandatory personal presence at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS. The order was expressly made without commenting upon the merits of the case.