Hostile prosecution witnesses do not justify bail for habitual offenders with multiple criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Birendra Singh, was arrested on 07.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 666/2025 for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act

The prosecution alleged that 101.88 bulk liters of country-made liquor and Rs. 3,150/- were seized from his possession

A previous bail application (MCRC No. 8572 of 2025) was rejected by the High Court on 29.10.2025 due to the applicant’s three criminal antecedents and the substantial quantity of liquor involved

In this second bail application, the applicant contended that out of sixteen prosecution witnesses, eight had been examined and turned hostile

The State opposed the application, highlighting that the applicant is a habitual offender with four pending criminal cases of a similar nature registered in 2021, 2022, and 2025

Whether the hostility of prosecution witnesses and the duration of the applicant's incarceration constitute sufficient grounds to grant regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the applicant's criminal history

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which penalizes the possession of illicit liquor

the hostalization of witnesses during trial is not an absolute ground for bail when the accused is a habitual offender with a demonstrated history of misusing the liberty of bail

The Court dismissed the applicant's arguments by emphasizing that the previous bail application was rejected on its merits

It specifically ruled that the fact that eight prosecution witnesses turned hostile does not provide a sufficient legal basis for releasing the applicant on bail at this stage

The Court scrutinized the applicant’s criminal record, noting four previous antecedents (Crime Nos. 482/2021, 226/2022, 237/2022, and 651/2025) of a similar nature

The Court reasoned that these pending cases categorize the applicant as a habitual offender who has previously misused the liberty of bail

Given the large quantity of liquor seized (101.88 bulk liters) and the applicant's recidivist tendencies, the Court found no change in circumstances or sufficient grounds to enlarge the applicant on bail

The Court held that the applicant’s habitual involvement in similar offenses precluded the grant of bail

directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously