When the Prosecution’s Case Crumbles: Karnataka HC Grants Bail After Victim Turns Hostile

In a significant order pertaining to the evolving criminal procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) has granted regular bail to an accused facing grave charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act, citing a collapse in the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation.

The Backdrop: A Trial in Stasis

The petitioner, Sunil @ Sunil Kumar, had been held in judicial custody regarding charges under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), and 65(1) of the BNS, along with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-I) in Haveri, reached an inflection point when the victim (PW-1) and the complainant (PW-2) took the stand.

Rather than fortifying the state's case, both individuals unequivocally failed to support the allegations previously documented. Despite intense cross-examination by the prosecution—which confronted the witnesses with their prior statements recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS—the witnesses provided no answers that could further the prosecution's objective.

Arguments at the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel argued that with the primary witnesses turning hostile and repudiating the prosecution's version, the legal necessity for continued pretrial incarceration had evaporated. The defense contended that further detention would be punitive rather than precautionary.

The State, represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader, argued against the plea, drawing attention to the serious nature of the offenses and the statements previously recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS. However, the court found these submissions insufficient to bridge the evidentiary void created by the witnesses' failure in open court.

The Court’s Reasoning: A Prudent Approach

Justice V. Srishananda, presiding over the matter, observed that in the absence of substantive testimony, the state’s evidentiary record suffered a severe lack of prima facie material. The court clarified that while the prosecution may have supporting documents, these are merely corroborative—they cannot sustain a case when the substantive evidence from the victim and complainant is missing.

The court maintained that while the allegations are grave, the judicial process must remain anchored to the facts as they emerge during trial. With the trial witness testimony failing to uphold the charges, the court found no legal justification for the petitioner's continued detention in judicial custody.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the importance of witness testimony in bail consideration:

• On the witnesses' testimony: "The victim girl has been examined as PW-1 and the complainant has been examined as PW-2. Both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned against the prosecution’s case."
• On the lack of substantive evidence: "During cross-examination, the victim did not adduce any positive answers that would advance the case of the prosecution to any extent."
• On the insufficiency of the state's record: "Under such circumstances, prima facie, there are no ingredients on record which would attract the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act or the relevant offences under the BNSS."
• On the requirement for custody: "In the absence of any substantive evidence in the form of reliable statements from the victim girl and the complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted."

Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the petition, directing that the accused be enlarged on bail subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties. To balance the release with public interest, the court imposed strict conditions: the petitioner is barred from tampering with evidence, must not leave the jurisdiction of Haveri District without permission, and is required to attend court proceedings regularly.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder that pretrial bail is not a comment on the final merits of the case but an assessment of the current state of evidence. By prioritizing the lack of support from material witnesses, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that judicial custody in serious matters must still be justified by credible, evidence-backed allegations.