The High Court has clarified that in prosecutions under serious offences like Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, regular bail may be granted to the accused if, after the presentation of challan, the prosecutrix and her mother (chief witnesses) do not support the prosecution case in their testimonies. This judgment affirms and applies established principles relating to bail and evidentiary assessment at the stage of trial, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/20484/2025 of JAGGA SINGH @ JASS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010569822025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Procedure (Regular Bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether regular bail is warranted in cases under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act when the star witnesses including the prosecutrix and her mother turn hostile after the start of trial? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when, after the framing of charges and commencement of prosecution evidence, both the prosecutrix and her mother do not support the case of the prosecution, and their testimonies are on record, it is appropriate to grant regular bail to the accused. The court noted that further prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded and the trial may take some time. Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and the order is based on the available evidentiary situation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The prosecutrix, a girl aged about 15, alleged forcible rape by the petitioner. After investigation, the accused was arrested, the challan was presented, and prosecution evidence began. Both the prosecutrix and her mother, in their depositions before court, did not support the prosecution case, leading to the instant bail application. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering bail under similar circumstances |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Emphasizes that if the prosecutrix and her mother (key eye-witnesses) turn hostile after charges are framed, courts may consider granting regular bail, even in grave and stringent offences under POCSO/Section 376 IPC.
- The court bases bail not on merits or acquittal possibilities but on the present evidentiary stance, without prejudice to the eventual outcome of the trial.
- Lawyers should ensure timely production of hostile witness depositions as annexures in bail matters to strengthen the case for release.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the sequence of proceedings: investigation completed, challan presented, charges framed, prosecution evidence underway.
- The statements of the prosecutrix and her mother—being crucial witnesses—were examined and placed on record. Both did not support the prosecution’s version.
- Given these developments, and noting the yet-to-be-concluded trial, the court found it appropriate not to keep the accused incarcerated for a prolonged period.
- The court exercised its discretion to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the final merits, thus ensuring that the evidentiary shift (star witnesses turning hostile) tipped the balance for bail at this stage.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged that the case against him was false.
- Cited delay in filing FIR.
- Highlighted that the prosecutrix and her mother have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution in their depositions (PW-2, PW-3).
- Asserted readiness to comply with all bail conditions.
Respondent (State)
- Pointed out that the prosecutrix, in her initial Section 164 CrPC statement, had confirmed the allegations.
- Emphasized the gravity of the offence.
- Asserted that, given seriousness, the petitioner was not entitled to bail despite developments.
Factual Background
The dispute arose out of an FIR registered on the statement of a minor girl (about 15 years old), who alleged that the petitioner sexually assaulted her when she was alone at home. The case was registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. The accused was arrested nearly eight months after the alleged incident, and the investigation culminated in filing a challan. Trial commenced and during examination-in-chief, both the victim and her mother did not support the prosecution’s case.
Statutory Analysis
- Application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (akin to Section 439 CrPC, 1973 – regular bail).
- The court referenced the importance of prosecutrix’s Section 164 CrPC statement, but found her later court testimony (hostile) decisive for bail.
- The application and order did not involve expansive or restrictive reinterpretations of the relevant penal or procedural statutes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms and applies established criteria for bail in light of post-challan hostile witnesses.