Hostile testimony by prosecutrix warrants grant of regular bail in rape prosecution under BNS.

The applicant, a tenant in the prosecutrix's house, was arrested on November 6, 2025, following a written complaint alleging that on November 3, 2025, he forcibly committed rape (Section 64 BNS) after luring her into his room under the pretext of switching off a light.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending that he has been in custody since his arrest and that the prosecutrix/victim has turned hostile during the trial.

The State opposed the bail, noting that the charge sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the prosecutrix’s hostile testimony and the duration of his detention.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

It assessed the application based on established judicial discretion for bail, considering the progress of the trial (status of witnesses), the nature of evidence (hostile testimony), the period of incarceration, and the likelihood of the trial's conclusion.

The court also referenced Section 64 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) regarding the substantive offence of rape and Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNS/BNSS for imposing bail conditions and ensuring trial attendance.

The Court examined the case diary and the procedural status of the trial, noting that a charge sheet had been filed.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that out of 15 prosecution witnesses, three have already been examined, including the victim, who did not support the prosecution's case (turned hostile).

Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant had been in detention since November 6, 2025, and held that since the trial was likely to take more time to conclude, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The Court balanced the gravity of the charge under Section 64 BNS against the evidentiary developments and the applicant's right to liberty during trial.

The Court ordered the release of Avinash Kumar on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to specific conditions.

These conditions include a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory appearance on fixed dates under penalty of Section 269 BNS, and strict compliance with proclamations and specific trial stages (framing of charges/Section 351 BNSS statement) to prevent abuse of liberty.