Regular bail granted for sexual intercourse on promise of marriage following mutual settlement between parties.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on February 24, 2026, for allegedly committing sexual intercourse with the complainant under the false pretext of marriage

The prosecution alleged that the applicant lived with the victim for a year, during which he caused two miscarriages by providing abortion pills

The victim is currently two months pregnant and alleged that the applicant threatened her life upon his refusal to marry

During the proceedings, the applicant claimed a compromise had been reached, supported by an affidavit from the victim expressing no objection to his release

The State opposed the bail, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the filing of the charge-sheet and the victim's "no objection" affidavit

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

The substantive charges were governed by the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation)

The court also integrated procedural conditions under Section 269 (non-attendance) and Section 209 (failure to appear) of the BNS, as well as Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding) to ensure the applicant's presence during trial

The Court evaluated the application by balancing the gravity of the offences against the procedural status of the case and the conduct of the parties. It noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been submitted to the competent court

Significantly, the Court took cognizance of the complainant's advocate’s submission and affidavit stating she had no objection to the bail, suggesting a reduced risk of witness tampering or interference with justice

Given that the applicant had been in custody since February 24, 2026, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court reasoned that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to secure his attendance

The holding is contingent upon strict conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend every hearing personally or through counsel, and must appear in person for framing of charges and recording of statements. Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS or Section 84 of the BNSS