Hostility of memorandum and seizure witnesses is not a valid ground for grant of regular bail.

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

The prosecution alleged that between 23.02.2025 and 26.02.2025, the house of complainant Lalit Sharma was broken into and various gold and silver jewellery items worth approximately Rs. 95,000/- were stolen

The applicant was taken into custody on 02.03.2025 in connection with a separate case (Crime No. 366/2024), where he and co-accused persons allegedly confessed to the present crime in memorandum statements

Following the recovery of the stolen property and completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds that he was implicated solely on memorandum statements, the seizure witnesses had turned hostile, and the trial was delayed, with only one of seven witnesses examined since his arrest on 17.03.2025

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, on the grounds that witnesses to the memorandum and seizure have turned hostile during the trial

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail

Substantive charges were considered under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 305(A) (theft in a dwelling house), Section 331(4) (house-trespass or house-breaking), and Section 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)

The court followed the principle that the hostility of witnesses during the trial process does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially when a prior application was rejected on merits

The Court evaluated the applicant's contention that the hostile testimony of memorandum and seizure witnesses undermined the prosecution's case

The Court noted that the applicant's first bail application had already been rejected on merits in August 2025

The Chief Justice reasoned that the fact that seizure witnesses had turned hostile does not, by itself, constitute a sufficient legal ground to reverse the prior merit-based rejection and release the applicant on bail

Despite the applicant's assertions of false implication and trial delay, the Court found no compelling reason to grant the second application given the nature of the allegations and the previous judicial refusal

It held that the hostility of memorandum and seizure witnesses is not a valid ground for releasing the applicant on bail

The Court directed the trial court to be notified of the order for information and compliance