Regular bail is justified where the victim has no objection, the accused lacks antecedents, and trial will be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested on 15 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 39/2026 registered at Police Station Bijapur for offences under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(f) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

According to the prosecution, the victim alleged that, on 15 November 2025, the applicant called her to his residence on the pretext of handing over her Voter ID card. She alleged that, after she stayed at his house, the applicant entered the room during the night, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and threatened to kill her.

The victim subsequently discovered that she was pregnant and lodged a report on 14 May 2026 through the Sakhi Centre, resulting in registration of the crime.

The applicant sought regular bail, asserting false implication, an approximately eight-month delay in lodging the FIR, absence of criminal antecedents, and prolonged custody; the State opposed the application, while counsel for the complainant submitted that the victim had no objection to bail.

The charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations, the delay in reporting, the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the period of custody.

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

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(f) and 351(2) of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, the status of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the complainant’s position.

Bail was granted subject to conditions under which non-compliance or misuse of liberty could invite appropriate proceedings under the BNSS and BNS.

The Court found the applicant entitled to bail after considering that he had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 15 May 2026, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The Court also took into account that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby indicating completion of the investigation stage, and that counsel for the complainant stated that the victim had no objection to bail.

Without adjudicating the merits of the prosecution case, the Court balanced the applicant’s continued detention against the need to secure his attendance and the integrity of the trial through stringent conditions.

The High Court directed that Satish Madvi be released in Crime No. 39/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on every date fixed by the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail, 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.

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