The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that the denial of bail cannot rest solely on the nature of allegations or recovery of incriminating material when the prosecution’s core evidence has collapsed. In a significant ruling, the Court granted bail to an accused whose primary witnesses turned hostile and whose co-accused had already been released, emphasizing that custody must not be prolonged without credible evidentiary support.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Shravan Lal Bagriya, is accused in connection with F.I.R. No. 218/2025 registered at Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 115(2), 333, 3(5), and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The case arises from an alleged incident of homicide involving the deceased, whose son Premlal and wife Mangi Devi are the principal prosecution witnesses.
Key Facts
- The accused-applicant was arrested on 10.12.2025 and has remained in custody since then.
- A blood-stained axe was allegedly recovered from the accused-applicant during investigation.
- The complainant, Premlal (P.W.-1), and the deceased’s wife, Mangi Devi (P.W.-2), have turned hostile during trial.
- Two other eyewitnesses, Gangaram (P.W.-3) and Bhanwarlal (P.W.-4), were also declared hostile by the prosecution.
- The co-accused, Smt. Heeri Bagriya, was granted bail by the same Court on 18.04.2026 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4691/2026.
- The sole distinguishing factor between the applicant and the co-accused is the recovery of the blood-stained axe from the applicant.
Procedural History
- 10.12.2025: Arrest of applicant in connection with F.I.R. No. 218/2025.
- 28.04.2026: Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, rejected the applicant’s bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- 08.06.2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5855/2026 filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought release on bail, arguing that the collapse of the prosecution’s case through hostile witnesses and the prior grant of bail to the co-accused rendered continued detention unjustified.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the denial of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be justified solely on the basis of recovery of incriminating material when the prosecution’s eyewitnesses have turned hostile and a co-accused has already been released on identical facts.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that with the complainant and the deceased’s wife having turned hostile, and two other eyewitnesses also declared hostile, the prosecution’s case had lost its evidentiary foundation. The recovery of the axe, without corroboration from credible testimony, could not sustain the denial of liberty. Reliance was placed on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that the co-accused’s release on the same facts created an irreconcilable disparity in treatment. The applicant had been in custody for over six months without a trial conclusion.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the recovery of a blood-stained axe from the accused-applicant indicated direct involvement in the crime. He argued that the gravity of the offences under BNS, particularly those involving homicide, warranted continued custody regardless of witness hostility, as the material evidence remained intact.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidentiary posture of the case and noted that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on eyewitness testimony, all of which had now been rendered unreliable. The Court observed that the recovery of the axe, while circumstantial, could not compensate for the absence of credible testimony linking the accused to the crime. The Court emphasized that the grant of bail to the co-accused, Smt. Heeri Bagriya, on the same factual matrix, rendered the continued detention of the applicant arbitrary and violative of the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts that the co-accused, Smt. Heeri Bagriya, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court... the complainant Premlal (P.W.-1) and the wife of the deceased namely Mangi Devi (P.W.-2) have turned hostile, and the other eye-witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case... this Court prima facie finds it a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail."
The Court clarified that its observations were strictly confined to the bail stage and did not prejudge the merits of the trial. It reiterated that bail decisions must be guided by the likelihood of the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence, or reoffending - not by the severity of the charge alone, especially when the evidentiary basis has eroded.
The Verdict
The bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. was allowed. The accused-applicant, Shravan Lal Bagriya, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the court on all hearing dates until trial completion. The Court explicitly stated that its observations do not prejudice the trial. The applicant has been in custody since 10.12.2025.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Hostile Witnesses Undermine Bail Denial
- Practitioners must highlight witness hostility as a decisive factor in bail applications, especially when the prosecution lacks independent corroborative evidence.
- Courts cannot rely on recovery alone to justify continued detention if eyewitnesses have retracted or turned hostile.
Co-Accused Bail Creates Presumption of Equal Treatment
- Where co-accused are granted bail on identical facts, denial of bail to another accused without a material distinction violates Article 14.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain why a material difference exists between accused persons.
Recovery Is Not a Standalone Ground for Denial
- Recovery of incriminating material must be evaluated in context: absence of credible testimony renders recovery insufficient to deny liberty.
- Courts must apply the triple test (likelihood of flight, tampering, reoffending) rather than defaulting to gravity of offence.
