Bail granted where material prosecution witnesses turned hostile and trial delay caused hardship.

The applicant filed his third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail.

He was arrested on August 14, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 505/2025 at Police Station Garha for alleged offenses under Sections 296, 119(1), 333, 351(2), 119(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged the applicant and his associates assaulted one Sharad Chakrwarti with fists and a sword-like weapon after a dispute over money for liquor.

Two previous bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The applicant moved this third application following the examination of several material witnesses (PW-2 to PW-7) who did not support the prosecution's case.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the hostile testimony of material prosecution witnesses and the likely duration of the trial.

2. Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing from justice or tampering with remaining evidence given his socio-economic status and lack of criminal antecedents.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

The court relied on the principles of judicial discretion in bail matters, considering the gravity of the offense versus the right to liberty, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

The court noted the importance of the socio-economic status of the accused (laborer) and his age (21 years) in assessing the risk of recidivism.

The Court observed that material prosecution witnesses, including the injured complainant and eyewitnesses (PW-1 to PW-4, PW-6, PW-7), have already been examined and did not support the prosecution's allegations.

The court noted that since these core witnesses have already testified, the risk of the applicant influencing them is eliminated.

The Court reasoned that continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to a young person whose "socio-economic status" makes him unlikely to flee or influence the remaining proceedings.

Given that the trial is expected to take significant time to conclude, the Court found no compelling reason to keep the applicant in judicial custody.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Court imposed five specific conditions, including regular appearance on hearing dates, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.