The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to an unexplained eight-month delay in filing the FIR and inconclusive forensic evidence. The judgment underscores that procedural irregularities and lack of incriminating material can justify bail even in serious offences, reinforcing the principle that custody must not be the default when the state’s case is weak.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vinod Singh Daroga, aged 26, was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 28/2026 registered at Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, under Sections 64(2)(m) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The allegations pertain to offences involving sexual assault and criminal intimidation. The petitioner claims the case arises from a consensual relationship that later turned contentious, and that the criminal complaint was filed only after a prolonged period of civil dispute.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred in or around June 2025, though the exact date is not specified in the judgment.
- The F.I.R. was registered on 11.10.2025 - approximately eight months after the alleged incident.
- The mobile phone of the petitioner was seized by police and sent for forensic analysis.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report returned inconclusive results regarding DNA matching and found no incriminating photographs, videos, or messages on the device.
- No other physical or digital evidence was recovered to substantiate the allegations.
- The charge-sheet was filed on 05.02.2026, and the trial is expected to extend over a considerable period.
- The petitioner has been in custody since his arrest in October 2025.
Procedural History
- June 2025: Alleged incident occurs.
- 11.10.2025: F.I.R. No. 28/2026 registered at Police Station Mandalgarh.
- 11.02.2026: Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara, rejected the petitioner’s bail application under Section 483 BNSS.
- 11.06.2026: Petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2404/2026 before the Rajasthan High Court.
- 11.06.2026: Hearing conducted by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Shah (Vacation Judge).
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate release on bail under Section 483 BNSS, arguing that the delay in filing the FIR, absence of incriminating evidence, and prolonged pre-trial detention warranted bail. He requested personal bond and surety conditions to ensure his appearance before the trial court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a delay of eight months in lodging the FIR, coupled with an inconclusive FSL report and no recovered incriminating material, justifies the grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eight-month delay in filing the FIR was unexplained and undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. He emphasized that the FSL report failed to establish any biological link between the petitioner and the complainant, and no digital evidence was recovered from the seized mobile phone. He relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the prosecution’s case is weak and the trial is likely to be protracted. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that gravity of offence alone cannot override the right to liberty.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factual assertions regarding the delay in FIR filing or the inconclusive nature of the FSL report. While opposing bail on the grounds of the nature of the offences under BNSS, he conceded that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case. He did not present any additional material to counter the petitioner’s submissions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture of the case with particular attention to the delay in registration of the FIR and the absence of corroborative evidence. It noted that the prosecution had not provided any explanation for the eight-month gap between the alleged incident and the filing of the FIR, which raised serious doubts about the spontaneity and veracity of the complaint.
"The FSL report remains inconclusive with regard to DNA matching and no incriminating material was found in the mobile phone of the accused-applicant."
The Court further observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed, indicating that the investigation was complete and the accused had been formally charged. The absence of any recovered digital or physical evidence, combined with the prolonged period of incarceration, weighed heavily in favour of bail.
The Court emphasized that its observations were strictly confined to the bail stage and did not prejudge the merits of the trial. It reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and where the evidence is weak or inconclusive, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The Verdict
The bail application under Section 483 BNSS was allowed. The petitioner, Vinod Singh Daroga, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever called upon until the conclusion of the trial. The Court clarified that its observations are limited to the bail application and shall not prejudice the trial in any manner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in FIR Filing Undermines Prosecution Credibility
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials where FIRs are filed after prolonged delays without explanation
- Courts are increasingly treating unexplained delays as indicators of mala fide intent or fabrication
- In sexual offence cases under BNSS, delay must be addressed at the bail stage, not deferred to trial
Inconclusive Forensic Evidence Supports Bail
- Absence of DNA, digital, or physical evidence should be raised as a decisive factor in bail hearings
- FSL reports that are inconclusive or negative must be formally brought to the court’s attention
- Prosecution cannot rely solely on allegations when forensic evidence is absent
Trial Length Is a Valid Consideration for Bail
- Prolonged pre-trial detention is now a recognized ground for bail, even in serious cases
- Courts must assess the likely duration of trial when evaluating the necessity of custody
- Bail should be granted where the accused has been detained for a substantial period without trial commencement
