Regular bail granted in rape case involving consensual relationship between adults aware of accused's marriage.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail

He was arrested on November 2, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 466/2025 for offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, involving allegations of repeated rape and criminal intimidation

The prosecutrix, aged 25, alleged that the applicant, aged 38, committed rape multiple times between 2022 and October 2025 under the pretext of marriage

Notably, the prosecutrix admitted she knew the applicant was already married as early as October 2022

The first bail application was withdrawn on December 12, 2025, and a final report has since been submitted following the completion of the investigation

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the completion of the investigation, and the lack of criminal antecedents

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It considered the substantive offences under Section 64(2)(m) (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority) and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The court relied on established principles for bail, including the assessment of the likelihood of recidivism, the risk of tampering with evidence, the socio-economic status of the accused, and the potential for fleeing from justice

The court examined the case diary and noted that while the prosecutrix alleged rape under a false promise of marriage, she was admittedly aware of the applicant's existing marriage since 2022

This suggested a potentially consensual relationship between "worldly-wise adults" rather than a non-consensual act

The court observed that the investigation was complete and a final report had been filed, meaning further custodial interrogation was unnecessary

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has established family roots, and there is no evidence suggesting a likelihood of him fleeing or influencing witnesses

Given that the trial is expected to take time, the court found the applicant's contentions regarding false implication and hardship to his family to have prima-facie merit

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount

The court imposed several conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict mandate against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses

The order is to remain effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to compliance with the stated conditions