Accused entitled to bail on parity and completion of investigation where injuries are simple in nature.

The Appellant was accused in Crime No. 580/2025 for allegedly assaulting the informant, Akshay Raju Bhill, and abusing him on his caste

On 16.09.2025, the informant went to a hospital after hearing his brother had been stabbed by co-accused Bhaiya Marathe. En route, he was intercepted by the Appellant and others, who allegedly uttered casteist slurs, dragged him into a house, and assaulted him with a sword, causing multiple injuries

The Appellant was arrested on 20.09.2025

The Trial Court (Special Judge, Nandurbar) rejected the bail application on 29.12.2025, citing the nature of the assault and the Appellant’s criminal history

1. Whether the Appellant made out a prima facie case for the grant of bail considering the nature of injuries and the completion of the investigation

2. Whether the Appellant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with other co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail

The Court applied Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, governing appeals against bail orders

Substantive charges included Sections 310(2) (dacoity) and 311 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with caste-based offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act

Procedural principles regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation post-charge-sheet and the assessment of medical evidence (simple vs. grievous injuries) were also applied

The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged an assault with a lethal weapon (sword), the Medical Officer’s injury certificate categorized all 12 injuries sustained by the informant—including head contusions and incised lesions—as "simple in nature"

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed, rendering further detention unnecessary for evidentiary purposes

Furthermore, the Court found that since the Appellant was a permanent resident of Nandurbar, there was a low risk of him fleeing from justice

Although the Trial Court had noted the Appellant's criminal history, the High Court emphasized that two co-accused had already been granted bail, and the prima facie material did not warrant continued incarceration given the simple nature of the injuries

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Trial Court’s order dated 29.12.2025. The Appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, attending the trial regularly, and not entering Nandurbar City without permission