Serious allegations of sexual assault and house trespass preclude discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 40/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on 13.10.2025 and 15.10.2025, the applicant, in an inebriated state, hounded the victim at her residence.

On the second occasion, he allegedly trespassed into her home, expressed romantic interest, caught her hand, pulled her toward him, and threatened her and her husband with death.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, evidenced by WhatsApp chats and photos, and that the FIR was a retaliatory measure for refusing monetary demands after a three-month delay.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the allegations involving sexual assault and criminal intimidation.

The Court considered the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 296 (Obscene acts), Section 333 (House-trespass), Section 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and Section 324(1) (Mischief).

The court applied the principle that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and its grant must be weighed against the gravity of the offense and the impact on the victim’s safety and dignity.

The Court balanced the applicant's claims of a consensual relationship and unexplained delay against the gravity of the prosecution's allegations.

The Court noted that the applicant is accused of trespassing into a woman’s home during her husband's absence and committing acts amounting to sexual assault and intimidation.

Regarding the three-month delay in lodging the FIR, the Court found the victim's explanation—attributing the delay to fear, shame, and intimidation—to be prima facie acceptable at this stage.

The Hon'ble Chief Justice reasoned that because the allegations involve a serious breach of a woman’s "dignity and safety within the confines of her home," the specific role attributed to the applicant outweighed the arguments for personal liberty.

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

The Court clarified that this observation was made without commenting on the final merits of the case.