Hostile testimony of material witnesses and lack of criminal antecedents justify grant of regular bail.

The applicant, Bhupendra Singh Lodhi (alias Dashrath Singh Lodhi), filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on May 29, 2025, following a verbal dispute at a marriage ceremony, the applicant and other co-accused intercepted the complainant and his family, assaulting them with weapons.

One victim, Preeti, succumbed to her injuries.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since July 25, 2025.

The defense contended that the applicant was falsely implicated, citing that six material eyewitnesses (PW-1 to PW-6) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the hostile testimony of material eyewitnesses and the anticipated duration of the trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

Gravity of the offence under Section 103(1) (Murder) and other sections of the BNS, balanced against the principles of socio-economic status, criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

Procedural requirements of Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the continuous examination of witnesses.

The court evaluated the necessity of continued incarceration against the backdrop of the trial's progress. It noted that although the charges were grave, the material witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6) had already been examined and failed to support the prosecution.

The court observed that the applicant, a 24-year-old agriculturist, had no criminal antecedents and was unlikely to flee or tamper with the remaining evidence.

The court reasoned that since the veracity of the prosecution's case and the applicant's complicity are matters for trial, and given that the trial would take considerable time to conclude, continued detention was not warranted.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant's presence at all hearings, the absence of further criminal involvement, and non-interference with witnesses. The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and do not reflect on the merits of the trial.