Hostile testimony of victim in gang rape trial warrants grant of bail for want of incriminating evidence.

The appellant was accused of gang rape, leading to the registration of Shivajinagar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2025.

Following a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the appellant was referred to the Children’s Court to be tried as an adult.

During the trial, two witnesses were examined, including the victim/informant. However, the victim turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution's allegations or identify the appellant in court.

The appellant challenged the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Samastipur, which had presumably denied him bail during the trial.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail in a case of gang rape when the star witness (the victim) has turned hostile and failed to identify the accused during the trial.

The court considered the penal provisions under Sections 137(2), 96, 70(1), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act; and various clauses of Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The court also applied procedural principles regarding the deprivation of liberty under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and the general principle that bail may be granted when there is a lack of incriminating evidence during trial.

The court observed that the prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of the informant/victim, whom the court identified as the "star witness".

Upon reviewing the trial records, the court noted that the victim specifically deposed that she did not identify the appellant as the perpetrator and did not support the occurrence of the alleged crime.

Although the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) declared her hostile and conducted a cross-examination, no incriminating statements were elicited.

The court reasoned that since the primary evidence against the appellant had effectively collapsed during the trial, continued incarceration would constitute a groundless deprivation of liberty.

The court directed the appellant’s release on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000, subject to an undertaking by his father via affidavit to monitor the appellant’s conduct, prevent contact with criminal elements, and ensure his attendance in court.