Amicable settlement and victim's "no objection" affidavit justify grant of regular bail in matrimonial cruelty cases.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 208/2025 for allegedly assaulting his wife, Reena Kadiyam, on December 16, 2025

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, suspecting the complainant’s character, tied her hands with a rope and used a hot iron rod to inflict burn injuries on her cheek and mouth

Following the incident, a report was lodged at Police Station Bhanupratappur, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed

The applicant has been in judicial custody since January 13, 2026

During the proceedings, the applicant argued that the dispute had been amicably settled, supported by an affidavit from the complainant expressing no objection to the grant of bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the gravity of the assault balanced against the subsequent amicable settlement between the parties

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail

The substantive offenses were registered under Sections 296 (Obscene acts), 118(1) (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and 85 (Cruelty by husband or relatives) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court exercised its discretionary power by weighing the nature of the offense against the lack of criminal antecedents and the filing of a "no objection" affidavit by the victim

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations, noting the specific brutality of the assault involving a heated iron rod

However, it juxtaposed these facts with the applicant's period of detention (since January 13, 2026) and the fact that the investigation was complete with the charge sheet already filed

The Court placed significant weight on the "amicable settlement" reached between the husband and wife, as evidenced by the complainant’s affidavit

The Court reasoned that since the trial would take considerable time and the applicant had no prior criminal record, his release on bail was justified despite the nature of the charges

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant not seeking adjournments during evidence, appearing at all trial stages (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS), and complying with Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS in the event of default or misuse of liberty

The Court emphasized that any deliberate absence would be treated as an abuse of the liberty of bail