Regular bail granted where an adult’s prolonged consensual relationship, delayed FIR, and completed investigation supported release.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 56/2026 registered at Police Station Narayanpur for offences under Sections 69, 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant became acquainted with the victim through Instagram in 2023, induced her into a relationship by giving a false promise of marriage, and repeatedly had physical relations with her between 13 February 2024 and 1 April 2025 before refusing to marry her and severing contact.

The victim lodged the report on 10 June 2026, following which the applicant was arrested on 11 June 2026 and investigation commenced.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, that the victim was a major, that there was an unexplained delay of approximately one year and two months in lodging the FIR, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The charge-sheet had been filed and the trial was likely to take time.

The State opposed bail, relying particularly on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which allegedly corroborated the prosecution case.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of sexual relations induced by a false promise of marriage.

2. Whether the consensual nature of the relationship, the victim’s majority, the absence of criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of detention justified the applicant’s release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 69, 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of detention, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the evidentiary material including the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, and the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court considered the prosecution allegation that the applicant had obtained the victim’s consent by making a false promise of marriage, but balanced it against the applicant’s contention that the parties had been acquainted since 2023, had maintained a relationship over an extended period, and had engaged in physical relations on multiple occasions with the victim’s consent.

The Court also took into account that the victim was a major, that the FIR was lodged after the relationship failed to culminate in marriage, and that the applicant had been in custody since 11 June 2026.

The absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated duration of the trial further weighed in favour of bail.

Although the Court noted the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, it concluded at the bail stage that the circumstances supported the applicant’s release.

The High Court directed that Rajesh Karma be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions, including that the applicant would not seek adjournments when witnesses were present, would remain present before the trial court as required, would 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, and would comply with the consequences prescribed in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.