Regular bail granted where alleged sexual relationship was deemed consensual, charge-sheet filed, and accused had no antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 198/2026 registered at Police Station Malkharauda, District Sakti, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3) and 127(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). He filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

According to the prosecution, the victim became acquainted with the applicant through Instagram. On 11 May 2026, the applicant allegedly took her from Mission Chowk to an isolated place and raped her. He thereafter allegedly took her to hotels and other locations, including Bilaspur, Gondiya and Malkapur/Karad Malkapur, where he allegedly established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and by threatening to kill her family members. The FIR was registered after the victim contacted her family on 15 May 2026.

The applicant denied the allegations, contending that the victim was a major and a consenting party, that they travelled together through public places, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since 29 May 2026. The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant, accused of offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3) and 127(3) of the BNS, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, period of custody, alleged consensual nature of the relationship, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail?

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

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3) and 127(3) of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, the material contained in the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, the alleged consensual nature of the relationship, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court examined the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, in which she alleged that the applicant had taken her to different places, threatened her, assaulted her, and established physical relations with her.

Nevertheless, for the limited purpose of deciding bail, the Court treated the relationship as consensual and gave weight to the fact that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 29 May 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted, subject to stringent conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on the dates fixed by the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail, 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.