Bail denied for active participation in violent assault by unlawful assembly causing grievous injuries.

The applicant preferred a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail following his arrest on January 5, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that on January 4, 2026, the complainant and Ved Prakash were intercepted near a sugarcane field in village Kokdi by the applicant and co-accused persons.

The accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims with iron/steel pipes and fists, causing serious injuries—including grievous injuries to Ved Prakash that necessitated hospitalization—and damaged the complainant's motorcycle.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 324(1), and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in light of the allegations of violent assault and his role in the unlawful assembly.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the discretionary power to grant regular bail.

It considered the principles of vicarious liability in an unlawful assembly and common intention under Sections 191 and 3(5) of the BNS.

Furthermore, the court relied on the principle of judicial consistency and parity, noting the prior rejection of a co-accused’s bail application in a related matter.

The Court rejected the applicant's contention that his implication was based solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused and that no specific overt act was attributed to him.

Upon perusing the case diary, the Court found prima facie evidence that the applicant acted in connivance with others to form an unlawful assembly with a common intention to commit violent assault.

The Court highlighted the gravity of the injuries sustained by Ved Prakash and the active role of the applicant in creating an atmosphere of fear and damaging property.

Crucially, the Court observed that the bail application of a co-accused, Digendra Sahu, had already been rejected on April 8, 2026 (MCRC No. 3160 of 2026), and found no grounds to deviate from that stance given the serious and violent nature of the offence.

The bail application was rejected.

The Court granted the trial court the liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.