Regular bail granted to co-accused after charge-sheet filing where the principal sexual-assault allegation targeted another accused.

The applicants—Rajkumar Yadav, Savita @ Sarita Yadav, and Ganeshwar Yadav—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 70/2026 registered at Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

According to the prosecution, co-accused Kamil Yadav induced the victim through Instagram by promising marriage, established physical relations with her, and caused her pregnancy.

The applicants allegedly assaulted the victim, refused to arrange the marriage or accept responsibility for the child, and Applicant No. 2 forcibly administered abortion pills to her.

The applicants contended that Kamil Yadav was the principal accused and that the allegations concerning the sexual relationship and pregnancy were directed primarily against him.

They further relied on their custody since 29 June 2026 and the filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed bail, relying on the specific allegations of assault and forcible administration of abortion pills, as well as the supporting medical documents.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations, the medical material, the period of custody, and the filing of the charge-sheet?

Whether the applicants’ alleged role, distinct from the principal allegation of sexual assault against co-accused Kamil Yadav, justified the grant of bail subject to conditions?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

The Court considered the established bail factors of the nature of the allegations, the specific role attributed to each accused, the period of custody, the status of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial.

The prosecution invoked Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the BNS, relating to the alleged offences and common liability.

Bail was granted subject to conditions concerning attendance, non-adjournment during witness examination, appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail under the applicable provisions of the BNSS and BNS.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegations against the applicants, including assault and the alleged forcible administration of abortion pills, and noted that the medical documents corroborated the victim’s pregnancy and subsequent medical termination.

Nevertheless, while expressly refraining from commenting on the merits, it gave weight to the fact that the principal allegation of establishing physical relations and causing the pregnancy was against co-accused Kamil Yadav.

The applicants had remained in custody since 29 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these considerations, the Court found the applicants entitled to bail, subject to safeguards intended to secure their presence and prevent misuse of liberty.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring them not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to appear at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to face appropriate proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail.