Bail granted where material prosecution witnesses turned hostile, direct evidence was absent, and trial would be prolonged.

The appellant challenged the order dated 10 August 2026 of the Special Judge, Shivpuri, rejecting her bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). The appeal was filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The appellant had been arrested on 31 October 2025 in connection with Crime No. 381/2025 registered at Police Station Dehat, Shivpuri, for offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 28 October 2025 the appellant and her son Sachin murdered her husband, Rakesh Jatav, by strangling him with a towel, after which co-accused persons allegedly disposed of the body to conceal the evidence.

The appellant contended that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and that she had remained in custody since 31 October 2025.

Her earlier bail appeal had been withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer after examination of material witnesses. Thereafter, the complainant and the deceased’s parents were examined and turned hostile.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offences?

Whether the hostility of the material prosecution witnesses, the absence of direct evidence, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in trial justified grant of bail?

Whether the appellant’s release on bail should be made subject to safeguards designed to secure her presence and prevent interference with the trial?

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides for an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail by a Special Court; Section 483 of the BNSS, governing the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail; and Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act concerning notice to and participation of victims, with the State submitting that the victim had been informed of the appeal.

The governing bail principles applied were the assessment of the available prima facie material, the nature of the evidence, the period of custody, completion of investigation, likelihood of delay in trial, possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the need to impose appropriate conditions.

The Court found that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and that the material witnesses—the complainant, the deceased’s father and the deceased’s mother—had turned hostile.

The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.

The State opposed bail but could not point to any specific incriminating material against the appellant.

Considering these circumstances, the appellant’s continued custody since 31 October 2025, the anticipated delay in conclusion of the trial, and the absence of direct evidence, the Court concluded that bail could be granted without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

The Court also secured the integrity of the proceedings through conditions prohibiting threats or inducements, requiring cooperation with the trial, restricting unnecessary adjournments and foreign travel, and prohibiting commission of a similar offence.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Her release was made subject to the conditions contained in paragraph 8, including cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, compliance with bond conditions, abstention from similar offences, and not leaving India without prior permission.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.