The High Court, interpreting Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, held that even if a victim is declared hostile, where she reaffirms core prosecution allegations in examination-in-chief and cross-examination, bail should not be granted in grave offences (including under Section 6 POCSO Act). This decision adheres strictly to established precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MCRC/8567/2025 of KUNWAR RAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010451462025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Bail, Testimonial Evidence, POCSO Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether a bail applicant is entitled to regular bail when the victim is declared hostile but supports the prosecution’s core allegations? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail when the victim, though declared hostile, has in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination reiterated essential elements of the prosecution case. Mere declaration of a witness as hostile does not detract from admissible incriminating evidence supporting the prosecution. Considering the gravity of allegations under Sections 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, bail is not warranted. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The victim alleged that after returning home on 1.1.2023, the accused forcibly entered, the house was locked from outside by the wife of the accused, and the accused committed sexual assault. The FIR was lodged, investigation completed, and POCSO case is pending trial. The victim, though declared hostile, reiterated key allegations in testimony. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in contexts involving grave offences under the POCSO Act and similar statutes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Even if the victim is declared hostile, bail can be denied if essential incriminating elements are reiterated in testimony.
- Hostility of a witness does not in itself neutralize core prosecution evidence.
- Defence counsel should closely scrutinize not only the “hostile” label but also the substantive content of the victim’s full testimony when pursuing bail.
- The judgment reinforces the rigorous bail threshold in grave sexual offences, especially those involving minors under the POCSO Act.
- The evidence’s qualitative content prevails over formal witness status for bail adjudication.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed whether the victim’s subsequent declaration as “hostile” was sufficient to materially weaken the prosecution’s case for the purposes of bail.
- Upon reviewing the case diary, the Court found that the victim, in both examination-in-chief and cross-examination, affirmed the key facts: forcible entry, confinement (with the wife of accused locking the door), and commission of sexual assault by the accused.
- The Court reasoned that, despite being declared hostile, the victim’s testimony substantively supports all material allegations forming the basis of the charge.
- In light of this, and the gravity of the accusations (including offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act), there were no “good grounds” to enlarge the applicant on bail.
- The Court expressly rejected the bail application, upholding established standards for bail in serious and sexual offences against minors.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the victim had been declared hostile, and other witnesses did not support the prosecution case.
- Emphasized prolonged incarceration of the applicant since 17.1.2023 as a ground for bail.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that serious allegations were levelled against the applicant.
- Argued that the victim had, in fact, supported the case of the prosecution, thereby justifying denial of bail.
Factual Background
The case arose from an FIR registered against the applicant for offences under Sections 450, 342/34, 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. On 1.1.2023, the victim alleged that after returning home, she was sexually assaulted by the applicant, who forcibly entered the house; the applicant’s wife allegedly locked the door from outside. The current application was a second bail attempt; the first bail plea had been withdrawn. The charge sheet was filed and trial is pending in POCSO Case No. 04/2023. During trial, the victim was declared hostile but confirmed the material prosecution allegations in her evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to bail provisions in criminal procedure statutes): Court interpreted bail standards in light of testimonial evidence.
- Sections 450, 342/34, 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act: The court applied the statutory threshold for grave offences, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged sexual assault against a minor.
- The judgment applied a qualitative assessment of evidence, focusing on the substance rather than the label (“hostile”) for the purposes of bail adjudication.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed