Regular bail granted where the alleged relationship appeared consensual and trial would take considerable time.

The applicant, Lakhanlal, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 242/2026 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba, for an alleged offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The victim alleged that the applicant had established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage.

The applicant contended that the victim was a major married woman with two children, that they had been acquainted since 2024 and worked at the same place, and that the relationship was consensual.

He further relied on the alleged delay of approximately one year and five months in lodging the report, asserted that the dispute was monetary, and pointed out that the medical examination disclosed no external or internal injuries.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 5 July 2026.

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

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Section 69 of the BNS, having regard to the allegations, the material collected, and the period of custody?

Whether the circumstances relied upon by the applicant—particularly the victim’s majority and marital status, the alleged consensual relationship, delay in reporting, absence of injuries, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial—justified release on bail without expressing an opinion on the merits?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody, and considered the alleged offence under Section 69 of the BNS.

The governing bail principle applied was that bail is to be determined on the basis of the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the possibility of the accused’s continued detention, and the probable duration of the trial, without conducting a final examination of the merits.

The Court also imposed conditions under the bail jurisdiction, including attendance during trial and compliance with procedural directions; the order referred to Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS, Section 84 of the BNSS, and Section 351 of the BNSS in prescribing consequences for non-appearance or misuse of bail.

The Court examined the FIR, the statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, and the case diary.

In assessing the bail application, it considered that the victim was a major married woman with two children, that she and the applicant had known each other since 2024 and worked together, and that the defence asserted a consensual relationship.

The Court also took into account that the applicant had been in custody since 5 July 2026, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Without making any conclusive observation on the merits of the prosecution or the defence, the Court held that these cumulative circumstances justified the applicant’s release on regular bail.

The High Court directed that Lakhanlal be released in Crime No. 242/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain represented or present on each date of hearing, 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 the trial court to take action in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to comply with proclamation proceedings.