Bail granted where key eye witnesses turn hostile and trial conclusion is likely to be delayed.

The applicant, Ashish Lodhi, was arrested on June 4, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 249 of 2025 registered at Police Station Patan, Jabalpur.

The prosecution alleged that following a dispute during a marriage ceremony, several accused persons, including the applicant, intercepted and assaulted the complainant, Durgesh, and his family with wooden sticks, resulting in the death of an individual named Preeti.

This is the applicant’s second bail application; the first was withdrawn in November 2025.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds that six material prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6), including injured eyewitnesses, were examined and did not support the prosecution’s case.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the hostile testimony of material witnesses and the duration of his judicial custody.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It considered the principles of "likelihood of recidivism," "tampering with evidence," and the necessity of incarceration pending trial, balanced against the applicant's socio-economic status as an agriculturist and his lack of criminal antecedents.

The Court observed that despite the gravity of the charges (including Section 103(1) of the BNS for murder), several material prosecution witnesses—including injured eye-witnesses—failed to support the prosecution's narrative during the trial.

The Court noted that only six out of twenty-seven witnesses had been examined, suggesting the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

Regarding the risk of flight or recidivism, the Court highlighted the applicant’s young age (21 years), his clean past record, and his socio-economic status as an agriculturist.

It concluded that there were no compelling reasons to justify continued incarceration, as the applicant appeared unlikely to flee justice or tamper with the remaining evidence.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to strict conditions including regular attendance at hearings, non-commission of further offenses, and a prohibition against inducing or threatening witnesses.

This order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless bail is cancelled due to a breach of conditions.