An injured witness turning hostile does not justify bail where other witnesses support the prosecution.

The applicant sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), having been in custody since 9 November 2025 in connection with Crime No. 223/2024.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, among others, arrived armed at a worksite, where firing resulted in the death of Ambrish and injuries to Santosh Sharma; the applicant was alleged to have shot Santosh.

The applicant’s earlier, third bail application had been dismissed on merits.

In this application, he relied, among other matters, on the examination of Santosh, who had turned hostile, the filing of the charge-sheet, his period in custody, and the existence of a cross-case.

The State and complainant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the incident and the risk of absconding or influencing witnesses.

1. Whether the applicant established a substantial change in circumstances warranting bail under Section 483 BNSS after the dismissal of his earlier bail application.

2. Whether the injured witness’s failure to support the prosecution case against the applicant, considered with the other circumstances, justified granting bail.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the basis for the Court’s bail jurisdiction.

The Court assessed the seriousness and manner of the alleged offence, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the material emerging at trial, and whether circumstances had substantially changed since the prior bail decision.

No judicial precedents were cited in the order.

The Court regarded the allegations as serious because the accused were alleged to have arrived armed, fired at the complainant party, and caused a death; it also noted the specific allegation that the applicant shot Santosh.

Although Santosh had turned hostile, the Court found that the other prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution version and concluded that the applicant had not shown a substantial change in circumstances.

It further held that the cross-case, custody, and filing of the charge-sheet did not displace the seriousness of the allegations or justify bail at that stage.

The order’s operative paragraph describes the dismissed application as the “third bail application,” although the opening paragraph identifies it as the fourth.