Regular bail granted where material witness is examined and allegations indicate a prima facie consensual relationship.

The applicant, Bablu, filed a first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 358 of 2025

The complainant, a 25-year-old married woman, alleged that the applicant entered her home on March 24, 2025, committed rape, and threatened her with death

She further alleged that the applicant repeated these acts whenever she was alone and later threatened to disclose their relationship to her parents

The applicant was arrested on July 6, 2025, for offences under Sections 64 (rape), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 333 (house-trespass), and 332(b) (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant - noted as BNS equivalent) of the BNS, 2023

The applicant contended the relationship was consensual and the FIR was a result of pressure from the complainant's husband

At the time of the application, the investigation was complete and the complainant (PW-1) had already been examined

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the current stage of the trial and the nature of the evidence

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary despite the examination of the material prosecution witness

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 439 of the CrPC), regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail

The principle that the gravity of the offence must be balanced against the period of custody and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing justice

The absence of prior convictions and the socio-economic status of the accused (a labourer) are relevant factors in assessing the risk of recidivism

The court evaluated the applicant's request by noting that the primary witness, the complainant (PW-1), had already been examined in court, which mitigated concerns regarding the applicant influencing her or tampering with material evidence

While the State raised concerns regarding the gravity of the offence and one criminal antecedent, the court noted the applicant had no previous convictions and was a 31-year-old labourer with family responsibilities

The court found that the defense's argument regarding a consensual relationship and the delay in filing the FIR had prima facie merit that required trial-stage consideration

Because the applicant had been in custody since July 2025 and the investigation was complete, the court concluded there was no compelling reason to justify further incarceration, as the risk of the applicant fleeing or repeating the offence appeared minimal

The court held that since the material witness had been examined and there was no substantial risk of fleeing or recidivism, the applicant deserved to be released to alleviate hardship to his dependent family

The court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount, subject to specific conditions, including regular attendance at trial and a prohibition against tampering with remaining evidence or threatening witnesses