Victim’s hostile testimony cannot at bail stage conclusively negate a prima facie case.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 332(B), 64(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that during the intervening night of 1–2 March 2026, the applicant entered the house of a widow by breaking the wall, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her, assaulted her, restrained her from raising an alarm and threatened to kill her.

The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits by a co-ordinate Bench on 13 May 2026.

In the second application, the applicant relied on the subsequent testimony of the victim before the trial court, contending that she had not supported the prosecution case, and also submitted that only one of thirteen prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the allegations were grave and that the victim’s testimony could not be conclusively assessed at the bail stage.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail on the ground that, after rejection of his first bail application, the victim had not supported the prosecution case in her testimony before the trial court.

Whether the subsequent examination of only one of thirteen prosecution witnesses constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant interference with the earlier rejection of bail.

Whether the Court could assess the reliability or credibility of the victim’s testimony in detail while considering the second bail application.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 332(B), 64(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that, while considering bail, the evidence should not be meticulously examined and the Court should not conclusively determine the reliability or credibility of a prosecution witness; such appreciation is a matter for trial.

It further treated the earlier rejection of bail on merits by a co-ordinate Bench as a significant circumstance requiring a demonstrable and sufficient change in circumstances before a second bail application could succeed.

The Court considered the serious allegations that the applicant had forcibly entered the residence of a widow at night, committed forcible sexual intercourse, assaulted her and threatened her.

Although the victim had not supported the prosecution case in her deposition, the Court held that her testimony could not be conclusively evaluated at the bail stage, particularly when twelve other prosecution witnesses remained to be examined.

The Court therefore found that the victim’s deposition, by itself, did not establish the absence of a prima facie case or constitute a sufficient ground to depart from the earlier merits-based rejection of bail.

Since detailed assessment of the witness’s credibility was impermissible at that stage, no adequate ground for interference was made out.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for information and compliance.