A private-defence plea cannot defeat a prima facie case at the bail stage.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of the allegations and material in the case diary.

The court held

The Court answered the bail question against the applicants and rejected both applications, holding that the alleged involvement of the applicants could not be ruled out at that stage in view of the specific allegations and eyewitness accounts.

01Facts

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 29/2026, registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 191(2) and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that, after a dispute and violent scuffle concerning wrong-side driving on 14 January 2026, an Innova struck Kailash Tiwari, causing injuries from which he died; the applicants were arrested on 17 January 2026.

¶ 2

The applicants relied on cross-FIRs, injuries to Chandan Yadav, self-defence, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial.

¶ 3

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged common intention and two eyewitnesses.

¶ 4

The Court considered the case diary and rejected both applications.

¶ 5–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of the allegations and material in the case diary.

¶ 1, 5–9

ii.2. Whether the applicants’ claim that the collision was accidental or occurred in self-defence could displace the prima facie case at the bail stage.

¶ 3, 6–8

03Law Applied

The applications were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s or Court of Session’s power to grant bail.

¶ 1

The Court stated that, at the bail stage, its role is confined to verifying whether a prima facie case exists; it did not cite any precedent for this principle.

¶ 7

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 191(2) and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Section 103 Section 115 Section 191 Section 296

04Reasoning

The Court treated the FIR allegations and the case-diary material as disclosing a prima facie case: the applicants were named, the allegation was that the car was driven over the deceased after a violent altercation, and two eyewitnesses were said to have witnessed the incident.

¶ 6–8

It held that the applicants’ account of accident and private defence raised matters whose veracity could not be determined at the bail stage.

¶ 6

The Court therefore found that their involvement could not then be ruled out, notwithstanding the grounds advanced in support of bail.

¶ 3, 8