Bail is warranted where both victims turn hostile and trial is likely to be prolonged.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from Crime No. 12/2025 of Harugeri Police Station.

The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 met the victims in December 2024 and that, on 3 January 2025, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault.

The case involved charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioners argued that both victims, examined as PW1 and PW2, had turned hostile at trial.

The State opposed bail, noting that other witnesses remained to be examined.

Respondents 2 and 3, though served, did not appear.

The Court considered its bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It stated that bail considerations include the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, risk of absconding or reoffending, and the possibility of witness tampering; a bail court should not conduct a mini-trial by scanning the prosecution case in detail.

The Court also assessed whether the material disclosed reasonable and sufficient grounds, at that stage, to believe the petitioners guilty.

The Court found that PW1 had completely turned hostile and denied the prosecution’s suggestions concerning aggravated and penetrative sexual assault; PW2, the other victim, had also not supported the prosecution.

Although the State submitted that other witnesses remained to be examined, the Court considered the victims’ evidence, the charge-sheet material, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

Applying the stated bail considerations without conducting a mini-trial, it concluded that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioners guilty.

Bail was subject to conditions that they not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, attend court as required, and not commit similar or other offences; breach could prompt an application for cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail petition.