Subsequent hostility of material witnesses justified bail despite earlier dismissal of bail appeals.

The appellant was arrested on 15 April 2025 in Crime No. 152/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Morena, for offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, during a rally at village Hinona, the accused persons stopped and abused the complainant party using caste-related insults; co-accused Girraj Gurjar allegedly fired at Sanjay, causing a fatal head injury, while Ranu Jatav sustained a firearm injury. Dharmveer and the appellant allegedly also fired shots.

The appellant’s earlier two bail appeals had been dismissed on merits. He challenged the order dated 28 July 2026 by which the Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena, dismissed his bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The appellant contended that the material witnesses, including the complainant, eyewitnesses and injured witness, had been examined and had turned hostile; that the only allegation against him was firing in the air; and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether, in light of the subsequent examination of the material prosecution witnesses and their failure to support the prosecution case, the appellant was entitled to bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 483 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the dismissal of his earlier bail appeals on merits?

Whether the appellant’s continued custody was warranted when the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, the material witnesses—including the injured witness—had turned hostile, and the trial was likely to take considerable time?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the rejection of bail in an atrocity case.

It considered the appellant’s bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the High Court or Court of Session’s power to grant bail.

The Court also noted compliance with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act concerning notice to the victim regarding the appeal.

The governing bail considerations included the prima facie evidentiary position, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the necessity of further custodial interrogation, the possibility of absconding, the appellant’s conduct and antecedents, and the expected duration of trial.

The Court treated the subsequent testimony of the prosecution witnesses as a material change in circumstances after dismissal of the appellant’s earlier appeals.

In particular, all material witnesses, including the eyewitnesses and the injured witness, had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution case.

The appellant’s asserted role was comparatively limited—allegedly firing in the air without causing injury—and the investigation had concluded with filing of the charge-sheet, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation and the immediate risk of interference with evidence.

Weighing these circumstances against the seriousness of the offences, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified, especially since the trial was likely to take time.

The Court expressly refrained from making any observation on the merits of the prosecution case.

The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring compliance with the bond, cooperation with the investigation/trial, non-inducement or intimidation of witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.