A hostile prosecutrix does not justify bail where medical evidence corroborates the alleged sexual assault.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 234/2025 registered at Police Station Chandameta, District Chhindwara, for offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(a)/4 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The 15-year-old victim was reported missing on 29 October 2025 and was recovered from Bhopal with the applicant on 11 November 2025.

In statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, she alleged that the applicant had forcibly committed rape upon her.

The applicant contended that the victim had left home voluntarily, that the DNA report was negative, and that she had turned hostile during trial. He had remained in custody since 14 November 2025.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the victim’s hostile testimony did not preclude conviction because the medical evidence supported the prosecution case.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations under the BNS and POCSO Act, the applicant’s custody, and the stage of trial.

Whether the victim’s hostile testimony and the negative DNA report justified bail when her statements and the MLC report supported the allegation of sexual assault.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving serious offences.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 137(2), 96, 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 3(a)/4 and 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court relied on Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 523, for the principle that a prosecution case is not necessarily destroyed merely because the prosecutrix turns hostile, particularly where medical and other evidence independently support the allegation of sexual assault.

It also referred to the principle that courts must guard against hostile testimony resulting from coercion, inducement or intimidation and must preserve the truth-seeking function of a criminal trial.

The Court found that the victim was 15 years old, had been recovered with the applicant after being reported missing, and had made allegations of forcible rape in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.

Although the victim subsequently did not support the prosecution case during trial and the DNA report was negative, the Court considered the MLC report to be corroborative of the alleged sexual assault.

Applying Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi, the Court held that the victim’s hostile testimony did not, at the bail stage, efface the evidentiary value of her earlier statements and the medical evidence.

Given the victim’s age and the seriousness of the POCSO allegations, the Court declined to treat the negative DNA report and the victim’s subsequent hostility as sufficient grounds for release on bail.

It held that, in view of the victim’s minority, her prior allegations, and the supporting MLC report, the applicant was not entitled to regular bail notwithstanding the negative DNA report and the victim’s hostile testimony at trial.

The first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly dismissed.