Substantial FIR delay and absence of criminal antecedents justified grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 278/2026 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti, for an offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant met her while she was appearing for her Class 12 examination, expressed love, and subsequently visited her house in the absence of her parents.

On 12 May 2022, he allegedly forcibly established physical relations with her on the representation that he loved her, and thereafter continued physical relations with her until 08 March 2025.

The prosecutrix stated that she delayed disclosure due to fear of social stigma and later informed her parents and aunt before lodging the FIR in 2026.

The applicant denied the allegations, relied on the delay in reporting, asserted that the prosecutrix was a major, and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and was a labourer supporting his family.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, alleging repeated sexual relations on the pretext of marriage.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS.

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, and the circumstances of the allegations justified protection from arrest.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS.

In exercising its discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the delay in lodging the FIR, without making any final observation on the merits.

Anticipatory bail was made subject to conditions intended to prevent interference with witnesses, obstruction of a fair trial, non-appearance before the trial court, and repetition of similar offences.

The Court considered the prosecution allegation that the applicant had repeatedly established physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage, but also took into account the fact that the alleged initial incident occurred on 12 May 2022 while the FIR was lodged only in 2026.

The Court further noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

Balancing the seriousness of the accusation against these circumstances, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to extend protection against arrest under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Amit Kumar Chandra be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat, or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; failure to appear before the trial court on each date; and involvement in any similar offence.

The applicant and surety were also directed to submit Aadhaar and photograph documents for verification.