Absence of grievous injury and completion of custodial interrogation warrant grant of bail despite criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Vivek Porwal, owner of Shriram Petrol Pump, was arrested on February 11, 2026, following an incident on November 16, 2025.

The complainants, Aditya and Manish Sharma, alleged that after a dispute regarding the quantity of petrol filled, the applicant and his employees assaulted them with sticks and fists.

It was further alleged that co-accused Sanjay Rathore attempted to strangulate Manish Sharma, leading to the addition of Section 109(1) of the BNS.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing false implication based on mere presence at the scene and noting that other co-accused had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of allegations and the period of custody.

2. Whether the lack of corroborative medical evidence for the serious charge of strangulation and the bail granted to co-accused persons justify the release of the applicant.

The court applied the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

It considered Sections 115(2), 296(a), 351(3), 324(2), 191(2), and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which govern voluntarily causing hurt, obscene acts, criminal intimidation, and abetment.

The court also relied on the principle of parity in bail orders regarding co-accused and the necessity of balancing the accused's right to liberty with the gravity of the offence and the risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged a serious attempt at strangulation, the medico-legal examination of Manish Sharma revealed no corresponding injuries to the neck.

It noted that the investigation was nearly complete, and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The Court analyzed the applicant's criminal antecedents, noting that out of four cases, the applicant was acquitted in two, sentenced to a fine in one (2015), and only one case from 2022 remained pending; this did not constitute a "substantial criminal past" sufficient to deny bail.

Furthermore, the court found merit in the applicant’s argument regarding parity, as co-accused Sanjay (who allegedly caught the victim's neck) and others had already been granted bail.

Given the applicant's socio-economic status as a petrol pump owner and his family responsibilities, the risk of absconding was deemed minimal.

The application was allowed, and the Court ordered the release of Vivek Porwal on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount.

The release is subject to five specific conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, non-commission of similar offences, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.