Absence of internal injury and radiological evidence warrants bail despite allegations of assault with a sharp weapon.

The victim, Khilawan Nishad, was allegedly assaulted by the applicant with an axe (tangiya) on 20.11.2025 after the victim purportedly used abusive language toward the applicant.

The victim sustained a head injury and was hospitalized for treatment from 20.11.2025 to 27.11.2025.

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 798/2025) was registered at Police Station Kharora for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant, who has been in custody since 20.11.2025, filed this first bail application following the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the nature of the injuries and the procedural status of the case?

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offenses were considered under Sections 296 (obscenity), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 109 (abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court applied the principle that bail may be granted where the investigation is complete (charge-sheet filed), the accused has no criminal antecedents, and the medical evidence does not support the necessity of continued detention.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegation—an assault with a deadly weapon (axe) on the head—against the medical findings and procedural facts.

Although the State argued the injury was grievous, the Court observed that no internal damage was caused to the victim and no X-ray examination was conducted to confirm the severity of the injury.

The Court further noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had already been detained for approximately four months (since 20.11.2025).

As the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial was expected to be lengthy, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided that strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial proceedings.

The holding directed the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony; he must appear at all trial stages or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS; and any misuse of liberty or failure to appear after a proclamation would trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS.