Hostile testimony of a single witness is insufficient ground for granting regular bail during an ongoing trial.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The applicant was arrested on 17.03.2025 in connection with a house theft (Crime No. 101/2025) involving the loss of cash and jewelry totaling approximately ₹60,000.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, while in custody for a separate offense (Crime No. 366/2024), confessed to the present crime in a memorandum statement, leading to the recovery of the stolen property.

A previous bail application (MCRC No. 6307 of 2025) was rejected on its merits on 29.08.2025.

The applicant moved this second application on the grounds of trial delay and the fact that one out of six prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.

Whether the hostility of a single prosecution witness and the duration of the applicant's custody constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of regular bail in a second application.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court’s power to grant bail.

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 305(A) (theft in a dwelling house), Section 331(4) (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking), and Section 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

The Court assessed the applicant's contention that the hostility of a witness and the prolonged trial justified his release.

However, the Court observed that the trial was still in progress and only one witness out of the six cited by the prosecution had been examined and turned hostile.

The Chief Justice reasoned that the hostility of a single witness is insufficient to undermine the prosecution's entire case at this stage or to serve as a valid legal ground for reversing the earlier rejection of bail on merits.

The Court emphasized that the nature of the recovery and the prior rejection of bail outweighed the applicant's claims regarding trial delay.

The second bail application was rejected.

The Court further directed the Registry to communicate the order to the concerned trial court for necessary information.