Second Bail Application Rejected Despite Slow Prosecution Progress in Case of Forcible Sexual Intercourse

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The applicant was arrested on 07.07.2025 in connection with Crime No. 53/2025 for allegedly committing forcible sexual intercourse and criminal intimidation.

The prosecution alleged that on 29.06.2025, the applicant deceitfully lured the victim to his house and raped her.

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 7106 of 2025) was rejected on merits on 09.10.2025.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, noting that only one out of eighteen witnesses had been examined.

1. Whether the delay in the trial and the duration of the applicant's incarceration constitute sufficient new grounds to grant regular bail after a previous rejection on merits

2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant bail despite incriminating medical evidence and statements from the victim

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantive offences under Sections 64(1) (punishment for rape) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The principle that a second bail application requires a change in circumstances or new grounds, and that the gravity of the offense must be weighed against the right to a speedy trial.

The Court observed that the first bail application was rejected based on the victim's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and corroborating medical evidence showing injuries.

In the present application, the Court noted that the applicant's counsel did not press for bail on merits but instead focused on the pace of the trial.

While the Court acknowledged that 17 witnesses remained to be examined and the next hearing was scheduled for May 2026, it found that these factors did not constitute "good or new grounds" to override the initial rejection on merits, given the gravity of the allegations.

The Court balanced this by addressing the concern for a speedy trial through judicial directions rather than the release of the accused.

The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on a day-to-day basis, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments in accordance with the law.

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