Hostile prosecution witnesses alone do not constitute a sufficient new ground for second bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2026 registered at Police Station Kartala, District Korba, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during a Holi-related dispute at Beharchuwan Chowk, the applicant assaulted and pushed the complainant, causing him to fall and sustain simple injuries.

The applicant contended that the complainant and his companions had consumed liquor, created a disturbance, and that he had only pushed the complainant while defending himself; he also relied on the absence of any weapon, the simple nature of the injuries, and the expected delay in conclusion of the trial.

The applicant’s first bail application, MCRC No. 4958 of 2026, had been rejected on merits on 10 July 2026.

In the present second bail application, it was submitted that five of the ten prosecution witnesses had been examined and had turned hostile, and that the applicant had remained in custody since 9 March 2026.

The State opposed the application.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the examination of five out of ten prosecution witnesses, and their alleged hostility, constituted a sufficient change in circumstances or a new ground warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s second bail application after rejection of the first application on merits.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

It also considered the allegations under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the BNS.

The governing principle for a successive bail application is that, where an earlier bail application has been rejected on merits, the subsequent application must disclose a substantial change in circumstances or a fresh ground; mere reiteration of earlier grounds is insufficient.

The Court noted that the applicant’s first bail application had already been rejected on merits.

Although the applicant relied on the simple nature of the injuries, absence of a weapon, period of custody, and the progress of the trial, the Court found that the only material circumstance presented in the second application was that five of the ten prosecution witnesses had been examined and had turned hostile.

The Court held that this circumstance did not constitute a sufficient new ground or material change warranting bail, particularly when no other fresh circumstance was shown.

Accordingly, the requirements for reconsideration of bail under Section 483 BNSS were not satisfied.

It further requested the trial Court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.

The Registry was directed to forward a certified copy of the order to the trial Court for information and compliance.