Absence of specific overt acts of assault warrants bail in cases involving alleged oral exhortation.

The applicant, Shahnoor Khan, filed his first bail application following his arrest on April 12, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 167/2026.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant called the complainant, Sheikh Rizwan, to a specific location where two masked associates, acting on the applicant's exhortation to kill, assaulted Rizwan with a knife.

The victim sustained simple injuries to the chest, shoulder, and thigh and was discharged after three days.

Charges were registered under Sections 109 (Punishment of abetment) and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based on suspicion and that no vital organs were affected.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and his period of incarceration.

2. Whether the lack of direct physical assault by the applicant and the "simple" nature of the victim's injuries warrant his release pending trial.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It assessed the gravity of offences under Sections 109 (Abetment) and 3(5) (Common intention/Joint liability) of the BNS.

The Court further applied the established principles of bail jurisprudence, focusing on the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses, and the socio-economic status of the applicant.

The Court observed that while the applicant allegedly exhorted the co-accused to kill, there was no allegation of him personally committing a physical assault.

It noted that the medical evidence classified the injuries as simple, not life-threatening, and the victim was discharged shortly after treatment.

Addressing the State's objection regarding the applicant's criminal antecedent (a 2018 case), the Court balanced this against his family responsibilities and the fact that he had been in custody since April 12, 2026.

The Court reasoned that since the veracity of the prosecution's claims would only be determined during the trial—which is expected to take time—continued incarceration was not compelling, provided there was no risk of recidivism or witness intimidation.

The holding was conditioned upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount; the applicant was ordered to comply with specific conditions, including regular court appearances, refraining from committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.