Bail granted where prosecutrix and material witnesses fail to support prosecution and exonerate the accused.

The applicant, a 27-year-old laborer and exorcist, was accused of committing rape and criminal intimidation against the complainant at a deity shrine under the guise of providing medical treatment

Following the complainant's allegations, an FIR (Crime No. 515/2025) was registered at Police Station Sailana, District Ratlam, for offenses under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023. The applicant was arrested on October 29, 2025

During the trial, the complainant (PW1) and her husband (PW2) were examined; both failed to support the prosecution’s case and exonerated the applicant of the rape accusation

The applicant sought bail, citing the hostile testimony of material witnesses and his lack of criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the material witnesses exonerating him during the trial

2. Whether there exists a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice if released

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

The substantive charges were considered under Section 64(1) (Punishment for rape) and Section 351(3) (Criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court also referenced Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the due compliance of witness examination during trial

The Court evaluated the application by weighing the gravity of the offense against the evidentiary developments during the trial. It noted that the core prosecution witnesses—the complainant and her husband—had already been examined and did not support the allegations, thereby reducing the likelihood of the applicant tampering with material evidence

The Court observed that the applicant had no prior criminal record and, given his socio-economic status as a laborer with family responsibilities, there was no significant risk of recidivism or absconding

The Court determined that the contentions raised by the applicant possessed prima facie merit and that further pretrial incarceration served no compelling purpose, provided the applicant complied with stringent bail conditions to ensure his presence during the remainder of the trial

The High Court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount

The grant of bail was made subject to conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and a restriction against inducing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts of the case