Statutory scheme does not require a formal declaration of hostility before permitting cross-examination of one's own witness.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding Crime No. 766/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, with co-accused Lalaram and Chhotu Silawat, assaulted Satish Rajak with an axe and wooden stick.

This second bail application was filed on the ground that the injured witness, Satish Rajak, was declared "hostile" by the prosecution during trial, allegedly rendering his testimony ineffective.

Previously, the applicant’s first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.01.2026.

The Court applied Sections 142, 143, 146, and 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

Section 146 (equivalent to S. 142 of the Evidence Act) governs leading questions, while Section 157 (equivalent to S. 154 of the Evidence Act) permits the Court to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness.

The Court relied on Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976), which held that the expression "hostile witness" is not found in the statute and that evidence of such a witness is not washed off the record but remains subject to judicial assessment.

The court's discretion to permit cross-examination is untrammeled by the concept of "hostility" as established in Baikuntha Nath v. Prasannamoyi (1922).

The Court observed that trial courts and prosecutors often suffer from a "misconception" that a witness must be declared hostile to be asked leading questions.

Analyzing the deposition of Satish Rajak, the Court found he had "substantially supported" the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, only omitting technical details regarding the Dehati Nalishi.

The court reasoned that under Section 157 of the BSA, the trial court can permit leading questions to elicit the truth without adjudicating the witness’s veracity or effacing their prior supportive statements.

Since the witness did not actually resile from the core version of the assault, the applicant’s argument that "hostility" nullified the prosecution case for the purpose of bail was legally flawed.

The Court further clarified that even if a witness is cross-examined by the party calling them, the evidence is not automatically discarded; the judge may still rely on creditworthy parts of the testimony.

Finding no merit in the ground of hostility for the grant of bail, the Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the application and subsequently dismissed the case as withdrawn.