Bail granted where material witnesses exonerate the accused and no incriminating evidence is recovered.

The applicant, Pooja, filed her first application for regular bail following her arrest on September 22, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 181/2025

The prosecution alleged that the applicant befriended the victim, Pappu Gosar, and lured him to a location where co-accused persons (including one Raja, with whom the applicant allegedly had an affair) assaulted him with knives, causing multiple injuries

The applicant was charged under Sections 109, 126(2), 296, 3(5), and 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

During the trial, the complainant (PW-1), the injured victim (PW-2), and eye-witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) were examined and failed to support the prosecution’s case, effectively exonerating the accused

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the hostile testimony of material prosecution witnesses and her personal circumstances

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

The court also considered the substantive offenses defined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically relating to criminal conspiracy, abetment, and physical assault

Furthermore, the court adhered to the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, particularly when the prosecution’s evidence is weakened by hostile witnesses and the accused poses no flight risk or threat to the trial process

The court analyzed the merits of the bail plea by contrasting the gravity of the allegations with the actual evidence recorded during the trial. It noted that the material witnesses, including the injured victim (PW-2), did not support the prosecution's narrative and exonerated the applicant

The court observed that the case against the applicant was based on circumstantial evidence and that no incriminating material had been seized directly from her

Regarding the applicant’s personal profile, the court highlighted that she is a 22-year-old laborer with no prior criminal record and has the responsibility of two minor children

Consequently, the court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration, concluding that there was no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with the remaining evidence

The holding was based on the fact that the material witnesses had turned hostile and the applicant had clean antecedents

The court imposed several conditions, including mandatory attendance at all trial hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and a restriction against inducing or threatening witnesses

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to compliance with the bail conditions