The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in a sexual offence case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where the court found a prima facie possibility of a consensual relationship between the accused and the victim. The order underscores that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of the seriousness of the charge when there is no credible apprehension of witness interference or flight risk.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaaya Sanhita, 2023, to an accused charged under Sections 87 and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court held that where the victim and accused were classmates and the circumstances suggest a possible consensual relationship, and where investigation is complete with no risk of witness tampering or absconding, bail must be granted. The accused was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, aged 23, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 147/2025 registered at Police Station Devgarh, District Pratapgarh, under Sections 87 and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which criminalize sexual intercourse by a person in a position of trust or authority and sexual assault without consent. The victim, a B.A. first-year student, alleged that on October 19, 2025, the petitioner, her classmate, came to her house intoxicated and forcibly took her to a kacha house where she was sexually assaulted.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the victim and the accused were in a romantic relationship and had voluntarily met on the date of the alleged incident. The family’s subsequent discovery of the relationship, according to the defence, led to the false implication of the accused. The statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaaya Sanhita, 2023, were examined by the court. The investigation had concluded, and the case was ready for trial. The petitioner had been in judicial custody since arrest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaaya Sanhita, 2023, could be denied in a sexual offence case solely on the basis of the nature of the charge, when the material on record raises a plausible alternative explanation of consensual conduct and there is no demonstrated risk of witness tampering or absconding.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim’s own statements indicated a pre-existing relationship with the accused, and that the allegation of force was inconsistent with the circumstances of their meeting. The counsel cited the absence of any injury or resistance in the medical or forensic record, and emphasized that the accused was a student with no prior criminal record. The investigation was complete, and there was no indication that the accused would interfere with witnesses or flee. The counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused is young and the trial is likely to be protracted.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail on the grounds that the offences under Sections 87 and 64(1) BNS are serious, non-bailable, and involve violation of bodily autonomy. The prosecution argued that the gravity of the charge, the vulnerability of the victim, and the societal implications warranted continued custody. No specific evidence of witness intimidation or flight risk was adduced, but the prosecution maintained that the nature of the offence itself justified denial of bail.
The Court's Analysis
The court declined to treat the allegations as conclusive at the bail stage. It emphasized that bail proceedings are not trials and that the court must not prejudge the merits of the case. The court noted that the victim’s statements, recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, did not conclusively establish lack of consent. The fact that the victim and accused were classmates and that the incident occurred after voluntary meeting raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the act was truly non-consensual.
"This Court is of the prima facie opinion that the possibility of the victim having left her house of her own volition and having entered into a consensual physical relationship with the petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage."
The court further observed that the prosecution had not raised any specific apprehension regarding the petitioner influencing witnesses or absconding. The completion of investigation and the absence of any request for further custody or forensic re-examination supported the conclusion that the accused posed no threat to the investigation. The court reiterated that while the seriousness of the offence is a relevant factor, it cannot override the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 when other conditions for bail are satisfied.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces that in sexual offence cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, bail cannot be denied merely because the charge is serious or non-bailable. Where the material on record suggests a plausible alternative narrative - such as a consensual relationship - and there is no concrete evidence of witness tampering or flight risk, courts must grant bail. Practitioners should now routinely argue for bail in cases where the victim and accused had prior contact, especially in educational or community settings, and where the prosecution relies solely on the victim’s statement without corroborative evidence of force or lack of consent.
The ruling also clarifies that courts must avoid pre-judging the credibility of the victim at the bail stage. The observation that findings are for limited purposes only ensures that trial courts remain impartial. This precedent will be particularly relevant in cases involving young adults, where romantic relationships may be mischaracterized as criminal after family intervention.
The judgment does not establish a blanket rule for consensual relationships to negate criminal liability, but it does require courts to consider such possibilities at the bail stage without prejudice. Future bail applications in similar contexts should include detailed affidavits on the nature of the relationship and any prior communication between the parties.
