Regular bail granted where prolonged consensual relationship, victim’s no objection, and completed investigation supported release.

The appellant was prosecuted in Crime No. 475/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur for offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that he sexually assaulted the victim on the promise of marriage from 7 January 2024 until the FIR was lodged on 17 July 2025, and that the parties had lived together in Nagpur for approximately 45 days.

The appellant, aged about 26 years, contended that the victim, aged about 25 years, was in a consensual relationship with him; that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed; and that he had remained in custody since 11 May 2026.

The Special Judge rejected his bail application, following which the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

During the hearing, the victim appeared through video conferencing and stated that she had no objection to the appellant being released on bail.

Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the alleged consensual relationship, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the victim’s no-objection?

Whether the alleged absence of an allegation that the offence was committed with knowledge of the victim’s Scheduled Tribe status affected the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act at the bail stage?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the order refusing bail and applied the regular-bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, concerning repeated rape, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the apparent nature of the relationship, the materials in the case diary, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, the likely duration of trial, and the victim’s position regarding bail.

The Court expressly clarified that the grant of bail was without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

On examination of the FIR and other materials, the Court found that the parties appeared to have been in a consensual relationship from 7 January 2024 until the FIR was lodged, including a period of cohabitation in Nagpur.

This circumstance, together with the victim’s statement that she had no objection to bail, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the appellant’s custody since 11 May 2026, weighed in favour of release.

The Court also considered that the trial was likely to take time.

Although the appellant challenged the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the Court did not finally determine that issue; instead, it granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Court consequently set aside the bail-rejection order and imposed conditions intended to secure the appellant’s presence and prevent delay or misuse of bail.

The appellant, Rajnesh Prasad, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings in case of absence or proclamation, 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 Court requested the trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.