Bail granted after material eyewitnesses and injured witnesses turned hostile, with trial likely to be prolonged.

The appellant was arrested on 18 April 2025 in connection with a prosecution alleging offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that, during a rally, the accused persons stopped and abused the complainant’s group using caste-related words, and that shots fired by co-accused killed Sanjay Jatav and injured Ranu Jatav.

After an earlier appeal was dismissed on merits, the appellant filed this third appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the Special Judge’s order dated 23 September 2026 refusing bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The appellant relied principally on the subsequent examination of material witnesses, including eyewitnesses and the injured witness, who had turned hostile; the State opposed the appeal.

The Court recorded that the victim had been informed of the appeal as required by Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellant should be granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offences and the dismissal of his earlier appeal, in light of the subsequent evidence and other circumstances

Whether the Special Judge’s order refusing bail should be set aside

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked against the Special Judge’s bail order, while Section 483 of the BNSS is the provision under which the appellant sought bail.

Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act requires the victim to be informed of relevant proceedings; the Court noted compliance with that requirement.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the circumstances bearing on continued detention, including the state of the evidence and the expected duration of trial, without expressing any view on the merits.

The Court considered that all material witnesses, including eyewitnesses and an injured witness, had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case.

It also took account of the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

On those circumstances, and without commenting on the merits, the Court concluded that bail was warranted and that the refusal order should be set aside.

Release is subject to conditions, including cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, no similar offence, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and no departure from India without prior permission.