Hostile eyewitnesses do not justify bail where grave accusations and material witnesses remain.

The petitioners, Suresh Khara and Balabhadra Padhi, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Pottangi P.S. Case No. 132 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 39 of 2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput.

They were accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 506, 324, 436, 302, 307, 364 and 149 of the IPC, read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly, murdered Rajkumar Rudi, attacked and injured his brother, sister and mother, and set fire to their house in retaliation for the earlier murder of Gobardhan Pandaka, allegedly committed by the deceased and his family members.

At the stage of the bail hearing, four prosecution witnesses had been examined. Three witnesses had allegedly turned hostile, while PW-4 had testified regarding the occurrence.

The prosecution also stated that other material eyewitnesses, including the informant, Meena Khara, Dillip Khara and Manoj Khara, were yet to be examined; PW-4 had allegedly videographed the incident on his mobile phone.

The petitioners contended that the eyewitnesses did not implicate them and that PW-4 had been examined by the police eight months after the occurrence.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the materials collected against them.

Whether the fact that three examined witnesses had turned hostile, and that PW-4’s statement was recorded by the police after eight months, justified granting bail at the interlocutory stage.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in serious criminal cases.

The alleged offences included murder, attempt to murder, rioting, criminal intimidation, house-burning and offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, with several offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The Court reiterated the settled bail principle that a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate assessment of the merits should ordinarily be avoided at the stage of bail.

It further considered the gravity and manner of the alleged offence, the prima facie materials against the accused, the stage of trial, and the fact that material eyewitnesses remained to be examined.

The Court found that the allegations involved a retaliatory and allegedly coordinated attack resulting in the murder of Rajkumar Rudi, attempted attacks on members of his family, and the burning of their dwelling house.

Although three witnesses had not supported the prosecution case, PW-4 had testified regarding the occurrence, and the Court held that the alleged delay in recording his statement could not be conclusively assessed at the bail stage without undertaking an impermissible detailed evaluation of the evidence.

The Court also attached significance to the fact that the informant and other material eyewitnesses had not yet been examined, and that PW-4 had allegedly recorded the incident on his mobile phone.

In view of the serious accusations, the alleged use of lethal weapons, the competing allegations arising from the deaths of persons from both groups, and the statutory severity of the offences, the Court concluded that the petitioners did not merit release on bail.

Considering the gravity of the alleged offences, the manner of the alleged murder and attacks, the prima facie materials, the stage of trial, and the pending examination of material witnesses, it declined to exercise its power under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioners.

The bail applications in BLAPL Nos. 8476 and 8536 of 2026 were rejected, the matters were disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.