Hostile testimony of material witnesses warrants bail under the SC/ST Act despite previous application withdrawals.

The appellant, Kallu Banjara, was arrested on January 20, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 279/2024 at Police Station Fatehgarh, District Guna.

He was charged with various offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellant sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna, on May 7, 2026.

The appellant subsequently filed this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging that dismissal, arguing that he has been in custody since December 2024 and that all seven material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant Jagdish Bhilala, turned hostile during trial.

1. Whether the impugned order denying bail should be set aside and the appellant released on bail given the change in circumstances regarding witness testimony.

The court applied Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which governs appeals against orders granting or refusing bail.

The court considered the procedural mandate of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act regarding victim notification.

The court relied on bail jurisprudence concerning the duration of custody, the progress of the trial, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

The Court observed that the appellant had been in custody for a significant period since late 2024.

While previous bail applications were withdrawn, a material change in circumstances occurred as seven key prosecution witnesses were examined and failed to support the prosecution's case, turning hostile.

The Court noted the State's admission that these material witnesses had already been examined, which significantly reduced the risk of the appellant tampering with evidence.

The Court reasoned that since the trial would take a considerable amount of time to conclude and there was no evidence suggesting the appellant was a flight risk, continued incarceration was not warranted.

The Court granted bail to the appellant upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial and non-interference with witnesses.