Hostility of material prosecution witnesses, including the victim, warrants grant of bail in sexual assault cases.

The applicant, Krishnpal Singh (also referred to as Rajesh in the judgment), was accused of kidnapping a minor victim (aged 15 years and 11 months) and subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault.

He was arrested on November 10, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 360/2025 for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act.

This was a second bail application; the first was dismissed as withdrawn in January 2026.

Following the withdrawal of the first application, the trial court examined the victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1), and her father (PW-3).

These material witnesses did not support the prosecution’s narrative, stating instead that the victim was 19 years old at the time of the incident and had left home voluntarily to avoid an unwanted engagement.

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, following the hostile testimony of the material prosecution witnesses.

Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary given his lack of criminal antecedents and the current stage of the trial.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The underlying charges involved Sections 137(2) (Kidnapping), 64(1) (Rape), and 65(1) (Punishment for rape/aggravated rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The court also relied on Section 346 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The Court observed that the core of the prosecution's case was weakened because the material witnesses—the victim and her parents—exonerated the applicant during their examination-in-chief, claiming the victim was an adult at the time of the incident.

The Court noted the applicant had been in custody since November 2025 and that the State confirmed he had no prior criminal record.

The Judge reasoned that since the most critical witnesses had already testified, the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing the remaining witnesses was minimal.

Given the applicant's socio-economic background as an agriculturist with responsibilities toward aged parents, the Court found no evidence of him being a flight risk or a repeat offender.

Consequently, the Court determined that pretrial incarceration was no longer a compelling necessity.

The Court directed that Krishnpal Singh be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The bail is subject to several conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offenses, and must not induce, threaten, or tamper with any person or evidence related to the case.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless the trial court finds a breach of bail conditions.