Regular bail granted where a continuing relationship, filed charge-sheet, and absence of criminal antecedents reduced custodial necessity.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 279/2026 registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, who was known to the victim, established physical relations with her on 10 February 2024 and thereafter continued the relationship on a false promise of marriage. It was further alleged that, after the victim discovered that the applicant was married, he threatened to circulate her obscene photographs and videos and threatened to kill her and her family members.

The prosecution also alleged that the applicant threatened the victim’s brother and demanded money, which was transferred to him.

During investigation, the victim was medically examined, a spot map was prepared, witness statements were recorded, and the applicant’s mobile phone was seized. The applicant was arrested on 19 July 2026, and the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

This was the applicant’s first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the nature of the allegations, the victim’s statement, and the material collected during investigation.

Whether the applicant’s continued incarceration was necessary when the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of the concession.

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the BNS.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the accusation, the material available in the case diary, the circumstances emerging from the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions designed to ensure attendance, prevent adjournments when witnesses were present, and permit action in the event of misuse of bail.

The Court found that the applicant and the victim had known each other and remained in contact for a considerable period.

The victim’s statement indicated that they had developed a friendship and continued relationship, met on several occasions, and had physical relations more than once. On this material, the Court considered the relationship, at the bail stage, to be continuing rather than the result of a sudden or isolated occurrence.

The Court also gave weight to the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 19 July 2026, his absence of previous criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

Without making a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case, these factors were held sufficient to justify release on bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further authorised appropriate proceedings in case of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.