Impending Marriage Is No Ground for Bail in Heinous Offenses: Bombay High Court Cancels Bail Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

In a stern message to lower courts regarding the gravity of heinous crimes, the Bombay High Court has cancelled the bail of an accused charged with gang rape under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 . The Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, emphasized that judicial discretion cannot be exercised on irrelevant parameters, noting that a scheduled wedding is no justification for granting relief in severe criminal proceedings.

Case Background

The Respondent-Accused, along with two others, faced allegations of offenses under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 351(2), 123, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita . The victim alleged that after being invited to a flat occupied by the accused, she was drugged, assaulted, and subjected to gang rape.

The trial court had originally granted bail in February 2025, primarily reasoning that the victim had no fresh injuries on her private parts despite external injuries, and that the accused’s marriage was scheduled for March 1, 2025. The State of Maharashtra, supported by an intervening victim-complainant, challenged this order, arguing it had ignored crucial medical evidence and the gravity of the charges.

Weighing the Arguments

The State argued there were significant infirmities in the trial court's order. Key omissions by the lower court included: * Failing to consider the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. * Overlooking medical reports which documented head injuries, scratch marks, and evidence of physical violence. * Ignoring forensic evidence, including recovered indecent photographs and a spot panchanama that corroborated the victim's presence.

Conversely, the defense contended that the victim had "improved" her story between her initial FIR and her Section 164 statement, pointing to discrepancies in timing compared to CCTV footage.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

Justice Gokhale found the trial court's reliance on the impending marriage of the accused to be "troubling." Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, including Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ajwar v. Waseem , the Court reiterated that bail orders must not be mechanical or perverse. If an order ignores material evidence or downplays the societal impact of a crime, it warrants immediate judicial interference.

The bench maintained that in the face of serious allegations supported by consistent witness statements and medical documentation, the personal circumstances of the accused—such as an upcoming wedding—cannot override the legal requirements for detention during trial in heinous cases.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted critical lapses in the lower court's reasoning: * "What bothers me the most is the considerations which are weighed by the Trial Court while writing the impugned order. The Trial Court has considered only two aspects; Firstly, that there are no injuries on the private part... Secondly, the Trial Court appears to have been swayed by the fact that the marriage of the Respondent-Accused is scheduled in the near future." * "The statute as well as a series of decision of the apex court and various high court have well settled the parameters for the grant of bail to an under trial. Impending marriage of an accused is not one of them." * "The alleged acts attributed to the Respondent-Accused are heinous. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Trial Court has ignored the relevant material available on record and failed to consider the gravity of the offence."

Court’s Decision

Finding the impugned order to be legally unsustainable and a result of the trial court’s failure to evaluate material evidence, the Bombay High Court set aside the grant of bail. The accused has been directed to surrender to the Investigating Officer within two days of the order’s upload. This decision underscores the judiciary's mandate to rigorously evaluate bail petitions when the safety of the victim and the integrity of a trial for a grave offense are at risk.