Hostile status of material eyewitnesses and prolonged incarceration warrant bail despite extensive criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Rohit Thakur, was accused of riding pillion on a motorcycle and hurling two "soovar maar" (crude) bombs at a temple on March 22, 2025

He was arrested on October 13, 2025, for offences under Sections 296 (Obscene acts), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, along with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act

This is the applicant’s third bail application; two prior applications were dismissed as withdrawn

The applicant sought bail on the grounds that material eye-witnesses, including the complainant and the constable, failed to support the prosecution’s case during the trial

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the testimony of hostile witness and the duration of his incarceration

2. Whether the applicant's prior criminal record (18 antecedents) constitutes a sufficient ground to deny bail despite the lack of incriminating evidence in the current trial

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC] regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It adhered to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially when material witnesses have already been examined and the possibility of tampering with evidence is minimal

The court also considered the socio-economic status of the applicant (a 25-year-old labourer) to assess the risk of recidivism or flight risk

The Court observed that the primary prosecution witnesses, including the complainant (PW/2) and eye-witnesses (PW/1 and PW/3), did not support the prosecution’s version and exonerated the applicant

Regarding the 18 criminal antecedents highlighted by the State, the Court noted the applicant's rebuttal that he had been acquitted in several cases and never convicted

The Court reasoned that since the material witnesses had already been examined, there was no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence

Given that the applicant is a young labourer with family responsibilities, the Court found no compelling reason to continue his incarceration during the remainder of the trial

The holding is subject to stringent conditions due to the applicant’s criminal history, including a mandate that the applicant must mark his presence at the Ghamapur Police Station every Saturday until the conclusion of the trial; Any breach of these conditions permits the trial court to consider cancellation of bail