Regular bail is rejected where repeated rape allegations involve threats to children and assault causing bodily injuries.

The applicant, aged about 64 years and the father-in-law of the victim, was arrested in Crime No. 202/2026 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti, for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The victim’s husband died in 2020, after which she resided with her two minor children at her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that, from October 2024, the applicant repeatedly pressurised her to establish physical relations with him, threatened to kill her child upon refusal, and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on several occasions.

It was further alleged that, approximately one week before the report, he assaulted her when she resisted his advances, causing injuries including the breaking of a front tooth.

The applicant denied the allegations, claimed false implication arising from the victim’s alleged relationship with another person, and relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 13 June 2026, and the slow progress of the trial. Of the five prosecution witnesses, only one had been examined.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the allegations involved repeated sexual assault, threats to the victim and her children, and physical violence causing injury.

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, pending trial for the alleged offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the limited progress of the trial outweighed the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged threats, and the injuries caused to the victim?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

It also considered the allegations under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including the allegation of repeated rape, criminal intimidation and causing hurt.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court assessed the material in the case diary, the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the seriousness and repetition of the alleged conduct, the alleged threats to the victim’s children, the physical assault and resulting injury, and the stage of the trial.

The Court found that the case diary and the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS disclosed allegations that the applicant had repeatedly subjected the victim to sexual assault after threatening to kill her children, and had subsequently assaulted her when she resisted, causing the breaking of her tooth.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 13 June 2026, and only one of five prosecution witnesses had been examined, the Court considered the allegations sufficiently serious to outweigh those factors at that stage.

The alleged relationship relied upon by the applicant as the basis for false implication was not accepted as sufficient, at the bail stage, to displace the prosecution material. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant’s case was not fit for grant of regular bail.

The Court held that the allegations of repeated rape, threats to the victim and her children, and assault causing bodily injury justified refusal of bail despite the filing of the charge-sheet and the limited progress of the trial.

The trial court was directed to proceed with the matter and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.