Bail granted after the prosecutrix failed to support the prosecution’s case during trial.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 96/2026 registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham, for offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 24 March 2026, the applicant kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was subsequently recovered from Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, from his custody.

In her statement during investigation, the prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage.

The applicant had been in custody since 27 March 2026, claimed no criminal antecedents, and submitted that the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution during her trial testimony.

This was his first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the prosecutrix’s testimony before the trial court.

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant regular bail.

The prosecution offences were stated to arise under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 87 of the BNS.

The Court considered the evidentiary position at the bail stage, particularly the fact that the prosecutrix, examined as PW/2, did not support the prosecution case and denied the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring attendance, cooperation with the trial, and consequences for absence or misuse of bail, including the conditions set out in paragraph 7 under the BNSS and applicable law.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix had already been examined before the trial court as PW/2 and had not supported the prosecution case.

She also denied the suggestions put to her by the Public Prosecutor, materially weakening the prosecution’s case at the stage of consideration of bail.

Taking this circumstance into account, along with the applicant’s submission that he had no criminal antecedents and had remained in custody since 27 March 2026, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted.

The Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from absence or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.