Hostile witness testimony during trial is not a sufficient ground for granting bail to a habitual offender.

The applicant was arrested on June 21, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 559/2025 for allegedly entering the complainant’s house and outraging her modesty through objectionable remarks

This is the applicant's second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS); his first application (MCRC No. 846 of 2026) was rejected on merits on January 28, 2026

The applicant contended that he is differently-abled, was falsely implicated due to previous enmity, and that three out of seven prosecution witnesses have already turned hostile

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's status as a habitual offender, including a prior conviction in 2019 for offenses involving the same victim under the POCSO Act and Sections 354(A) and 354(B) of the IPC

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of second regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS following the rejection of a previous application on merits

2. Whether the fact that prosecution witnesses have turned hostile during the trial constitutes a sufficient ground for releasing a habitual offender on bail

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

substantive charges under Sections 331(3) (house-trespass) and 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

the principle that criminal antecedents and the propensity of the accused to repeat offenses—evidenced here by a prior conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 78(2) of the BNS—are critical factors in determining the risk of misusing liberty

The Court observed that the first bail application was recently rejected on merits and determined that the current application lacked a substantial change in circumstances

While the applicant argued that three prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, the Court explicitly held that such a development does not automatically entitle an applicant to bail

The Court's reasoning leaned heavily on the applicant's criminal history, noting he is a "habitual offender" who has repeatedly harassed the same unmarried victim

The Court found that his prior conviction in a 2019 POCSO case and other pending criminal antecedents indicated a high likelihood of misusing his liberty if released

Consequently, the personal circumstances of the applicant (disability and duration of incarceration) were outweighed by the need to protect the victim and the integrity of the judicial process

The Court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and instructed that a certified copy of the order be sent to the trial court for immediate compliance