The heinous nature of an offence alone is insufficient to deny bail.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her before her marriage and later threatened to disclose private photographs and videos to her husband, using those threats to compel further sexual intercourse.

She lodged a complaint on 7 August 2026, and Crime No. 69/2026 was registered under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioner was arrested on 8 August 2026 and sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The investigation was ongoing, and the State opposed release on grounds including the seriousness of the allegations and risks of absconding, witness tampering, and interference with the investigation.

1. Whether the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS while the investigation remained ongoing, having regard to the allegations and the State’s objections.

2. Whether appropriate bail conditions could sufficiently address the State’s concerns about absconding, witness tampering, and interference with the investigation.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court applied the principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that pre-trial custody should not operate as punishment for the alleged offence.

It also considered the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the BNS, the available material, the petitioner’s antecedents, the period already spent in custody, and whether conditions could address risks to the investigation and prosecution.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged that the allegations disclosed prima facie material and that the petitioner’s claim of innocence was not for determination at the bail stage.

It nevertheless noted that the police had not shown that the alleged photographs or videos had been seized, that the complaint was lodged after a delay of nearly two months, and that no antecedents or similar prior offences were identified.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s local residence and his custody of more than one and a half months.

It concluded that the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, without more, did not justify continued pre-trial detention; the State’s concerns could be addressed through conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation and attendance before the courts.

Conditions included reporting to the Investigating Officer every 15 days until the final report, attending court when directed, not tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation, and not committing similar or other offences during the pendency of the case.

The complainant, victim, or police may seek cancellation of bail in the event of a breach.