Hostility of prosecutrix and material witnesses justifies grant of regular bail despite prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on November 28, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 296/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on November 25, 2025, the applicant entered the complainant’s home at night, threatened her, and committed forceful physical relations.

The complainant identified the applicant in the light of a bulb, and her son allegedly witnessed the applicant fleeing the scene.

An FIR was lodged on November 26, 2025, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

During the pendency of the matter, the charge-sheet was filed, and both the victim and her husband turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution’s allegations.

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

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

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 64(1) (punishment for rape), 332(b) (house-trespass in order to commit offence), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Additionally, the court incorporated procedural compliance requirements under Sections 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS and Section 269 of the BNS as conditions for the continued liberty of the applicant.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the shifting evidentiary landscape of the trial. It specifically noted that the victim and her husband—the primary witnesses—had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case during their testimony.

Although the State counsel opposed bail by highlighting the applicant’s four criminal antecedents, the Court emphasized that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in custody since late 2025.

Given that the conclusion of the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court reasoned that the applicant’s continued detention was no longer necessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his participation in the remaining legal proceedings.

The holding clarified that the hostile nature of the victim's testimony and the filing of the charge-sheet mitigated the necessity for continued pre-trial detention.

The release is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present [para 7(i)], must appear on all fixed dates [para 7(ii)], and must specifically be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS [para 7(iv)].