Hostility of injured witness constitutes change in circumstances justifying grant of regular bail.

The Applicant was arrested on May 13, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 195/2025 for allegedly assaulting the victim, Hamid Ali, with a knife on May 11, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the Applicant, along with co-accused individuals, inflicted injuries on the victim's stomach with intent to murder.

This is the Applicant’s second bail application; the first was rejected on merits on October 27, 2025.

During the trial, out of sixteen witnesses, four have been examined. Notably, the injured witness turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution’s case and denying the Applicant's participation in the crime.

The Applicant has remained in judicial custody for approximately ten months.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 109 (Abetment), 296 (Obscene acts), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court also referenced procedural safeguards under Section 269 of the BNS (Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 209 of the BNS (Failure to appear), and Sections 84 (Proclamation for person absconding) and 351 (Statement of accused) of the BNSS.

The Court’s decision to grant bail centered on the significant shift in the evidentiary landscape since the rejection of the first bail application. Although the allegations were grave, involving knife injuries, the Court observed that the primary injured witness had turned hostile and expressly denied the Applicant's involvement during his examination.

This weakened the prima facie case against the Applicant.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Applicant had been in custody since May 13, 2025, and with only four of sixteen witnesses examined, the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Balancing the nature of the allegations against the hostile testimony and the duration of pre-trial detention, the Court determined that further incarceration was not warranted.

The holding is contingent upon strict conditions: the Applicant must provide an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally at all critical trial stages (opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of Section 351 BNSS statements), and must not abuse the liberty of bail.

Failure to comply may result in the trial court treating such default as an abuse of liberty and proceeding under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.