Bail warranted where material prosecution witnesses turn hostile, investigation concludes, and trial faces prolonged delay.

The appellant filed a third criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 30 July 2026 by which the Special Sessions Judge, Bhind, rejected his bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

He had been arrested on 29 April 2025 in connection with Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind, for offences under Sections 191(3), 296, 103(1), 190 read with Sections 109(2) and 115(2), and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that, arising from a dispute concerning the purchase of agricultural land, the accused persons assaulted the complainant Balakrishna Parihar and his brothers while they were irrigating a wheat crop. Balveer, one of the injured persons, died after being taken to hospital, and the complainant’s Dehati Nalishi formed the basis of the FIR.

The appellant submitted that five prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, had already been examined and had turned hostile; that he had remained in custody for over one year and three months; and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation.

The victim was stated to have been informed of the appeal in compliance with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the serious allegations under the BNS and the SC/ST Act.

Whether the appellant’s prolonged custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and examination of five hostile prosecution witnesses justified interference with the order refusing bail.

Whether bail could be granted subject to conditions designed to secure the appellant’s cooperation with the trial and prevent interference with witnesses or the administration of justice.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases; Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides the appellate remedy against an order of the Special Court refusing bail; and Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, which requires notice and protection of the victim’s rights in proceedings under the Act.

The Court also considered the allegations under the BNS and the SC/ST Act, while applying the established bail principles that custody must be assessed in light of the stage of investigation, completion of the charge-sheet, likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of witness tampering or absconding.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court noted that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had already been filed, eliminating the need for further custodial interrogation.

More significantly, five material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, had been examined and had turned hostile, thereby reducing the immediate risk of the appellant influencing their testimony.

The appellant had also remained in custody for more than one year and three months, while the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Balancing these circumstances against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified at that stage.

It expressly clarified that the bail decision was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The risks associated with release were addressed through conditions requiring cooperation with the trial, prohibiting inducement or threats to witnesses, restricting similar offending, discouraging unnecessary adjournments, and requiring permission before leaving India.

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.

His release was made subject to six conditions concerning compliance with the bond, cooperation with the investigation and trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

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