Prosecution-witness credibility and evidentiary contradictions must be tested at trial, not assessed at the bail stage.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 447/2025, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 3(5), 61(2), 49 and 238(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He had been in custody since 29 December 2025.

His first bail application was dismissed as not pressed, and his second was dismissed on 3 July 2026. In this third application, he relied on the examination of prosecution witnesses after the second dismissal, arguing that their evidence and the CCTV memorandum did not establish his presence or involvement; he also cited his lack of antecedents, age and the likely duration of the trial.

The State opposed bail, relying on witness testimony and call-detail records indicating his alleged involvement and asserting that there was no material change in circumstances.

Whether the evidence recorded after dismissal of the second bail application disclosed a change in circumstances warranting the applicant’s release on bail.

Whether, considering the nature of the allegations and the material relied on by the prosecution, the applicant should be granted regular bail pending trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governs the application for regular bail.

In considering bail for a non-bailable offence, the court must give primary consideration to the gravity and nature of the offence and assess whether a prima facie case supports release.

At the bail stage, the court should not determine the credibility or reliability of prosecution witnesses; those matters are for trial.

The Court relied on Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 195, which cautions against making findings on witness credibility at the bail stage.

The Court considered the applicant’s reliance on witness depositions and the CCTV memorandum, as well as the State’s reliance on witness statements and call-detail records.

It found the allegations serious and the prosecution material indicative of the applicant’s involvement in the alleged hunting activity.

Although the applicant pointed to contradictions and omissions in witness statements, the Court held that those matters could not be resolved by assessing witness credibility at the bail stage; the evidence was for the trial court to evaluate at trial.

On that basis, the material and arguments presented did not justify granting bail.

The applicant was not released on bail and remained subject to the ongoing proceedings.