Hostility of material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents justify the grant of regular bail.

The applicant, Salim, was arrested on December 29, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 856/2025 for allegedly committing rape over a six-year period, recording obscene videos, and threatening the prosecutrix.

The FIR was registered under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 67-A of the I.T. Act.

The applicant moved for regular bail following the conclusion of the investigation and the filing of the final report.

Notably, during the trial, the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) were examined and did not support the prosecution’s case.

The applicant has remained in judicial custody since his arrest.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the hostile testimony of material witnesses and the duration of his incarceration.

2. Whether there exists a risk of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence if released, given the pending forensic report.

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

Substantively, the case involves Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) regarding punishment for rape, and Section 351(3) regarding criminal intimidation under the BNS, 2023, along with Section 67-A of the I.T. Act concerning the publication of sexually explicit material.

The Court also considered Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The Court observed that the primary prosecution witnesses—the complainant and her husband—did not support the prosecution during their examination before the trial court.

This development significantly weakened the prima facie case against the applicant.

Regarding the State’s objection concerning the pending Forensic Extraction Report of the seized mobile phone, the Court weighed this against the fact that material witnesses had already been examined, thereby minimizing the risk of tampering with evidence.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant is a 45-year-old businessman with family responsibilities, no prior criminal antecedents, and deep roots in the community, which mitigated concerns regarding recidivism or flight risk.

Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration while the trial remained pending.

The holding was predicated on the hostile testimony of the material witnesses and the lack of criminal history.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at all hearings and a prohibition against committing similar offenses or threatening witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial.