Regular bail granted where the prosecutrix did not support the case, charge-sheet was filed, and trial would take time.

The applicant was arrested on 5 April 2026 in connection with Crime No. 106/2026 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 70(1) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on the night of 4 April 2026, the prosecutrix was forcibly taken into a chicken shop by co-accused Munna Giri, who allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her, after which the present applicant and other co-accused allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her one after another.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he was innocent, had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 5 April 2026, and that the prosecutrix had been examined before the Trial Court but had not supported the prosecution case; the charge-sheet had also been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s direct involvement but acknowledged that he had no criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in relation to offences under Sections 70(1) and 115(2) of the BNS.

2. Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the prosecutrix’s failure to support the prosecution case justified release on bail pending trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were governed by Sections 70(1) and 115(2) of the BNS.

The Court considered conventional bail factors, including the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of the trial, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the stage of evidence, while expressly avoiding any assessment on the merits of the prosecution case.

Bail was made subject to conditions concerning attendance, cooperation with the trial, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, and consequences for misuse of liberty.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 5 April 2026, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that the trial was likely to take time.

It also took into account the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the submission that the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution case during her examination before the Trial Court.

Although the State asserted that the charge-sheet disclosed the applicant’s direct involvement, the Court held that the relevant circumstances justified bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

The Court accordingly balanced the applicant’s right to provisional liberty against the need to secure his presence and ensure the orderly conduct of the trial through detailed conditions.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date fixed by the Trial Court, 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 provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.