Hostility of memorandum and seizure witnesses does not constitute a ground for granting regular bail.

The applicant, Pradeep Soni, filed a second regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the rejection of his first bail application on merits on 29.08.2025

The prosecution alleged that between 14.02.2025 and 26.02.2025, a house-breaking and theft occurred at the residence of Ashish Kaushik, resulting in the loss of cash and jewelry worth approximately Rs. 40,000

While in custody for a different offense (Crime No. 366/2024), the applicant and two others allegedly confessed to the Sakri theft in memorandum statements, and the stolen property was subsequently recovered

The applicant has been in custody since 17.03.2025

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS on the grounds that memorandum and seizure witnesses turned hostile during the trial

Whether the delay in the trial, where only two out of seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, warrants the release of the applicant

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

Section 305(A) (theft in a building/tent/vessel), Section 331(4) (house-trespass or lurking house-trespass), and Section 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The principle that a second bail application must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or legal grounds, and that the hostility of certain witnesses during trial does not inherently entitle an accused to bail

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds that he was arrested solely on the basis of memorandum statements and that the witnesses to these statements and the subsequent seizures had turned hostile during the trial, thereby weakening the prosecution's case

the applicant cited the slow progress of the trial and his year-long detention as reasons for release

The Court, however, rejected these contentions after perusing the case diary

It specifically held that the fact that memorandum and seizure witnesses turned hostile is not a sufficient legal ground for granting bail

The Court emphasized that the previous bail application had already been rejected on its merits, and the current trial developments did not warrant a reversal of that stance

It held that the hostility of memorandum and seizure witnesses does not constitute a valid ground for release on bail in the present circumstances

The Court directed the trial court to be informed of the order for necessary compliance