Regular bail granted where the complainant had no objection, the accused lacked antecedents, and trial would be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 135/2026 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 76, 331(5) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)

The complainant alleged that on 30 April 2026, while she was alone at home, the applicant—described as her son’s friend—entered the house, caught her hand, attempted to remove her kurti, threatened to take her to Jharkhand, and assaulted her, causing injuries

She lodged the report on 4 May 2026, approximately four days after the alleged incident, following consultation with her family.

The applicant claimed false implication, relied on the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of independent eyewitnesses, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that none of the eight prosecution witnesses had yet been examined.

He also submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and had remained in custody since 4 May 2026

The State opposed the application, while counsel for the complainant stated that the victim had no objection to the grant of bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations, delay in lodging the FIR, completion of investigation, and other circumstances of the case?

2. Whether the applicant’s release on bail should be subject to conditions securing his presence and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to consider the applicant’s request for regular bail

In deciding bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, the probable delay in conclusion of trial, and the complainant’s lack of objection

The Court also imposed conditions under its bail jurisdiction requiring the applicant to attend proceedings, avoid unnecessary adjournments, remain present at material stages of trial, and face consequences in case of misuse of bail

The Court noted that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had already been filed, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary

It also considered that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 4 May 2026, and that the trial had not substantively commenced because none of the eight cited witnesses had been examined

The four-day delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of independent eyewitnesses were matters relied upon by the defence, but the Court did not finally assess their evidentiary value at the bail stage.

Weighing the overall circumstances, particularly the complainant’s statement that she had no objection to bail, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to safeguards

The applicant was required not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS

The order further provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of misuse of bail, failure to appear pursuant to proclamation, or deliberate absence from the proceedings

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