Bail denied for grave weapon assault, prima facie evidence, witness intimidation risk, and no changed circumstances.

The applicant was arrested on 20 July 2025 in connection with Crime No. 283/2025 registered at Police Station Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 118(1), 351(5), 3(5) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during a birthday gathering on 10 June 2025, co-accused Prabhu Jatav abused the complainant, after which the applicant allegedly assaulted the complainant, his uncle, and another injured person with an iron knife, while other co-accused persons caused injuries with a stone and lathi.

The applicant filed his fifth bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he was falsely implicated, the injuries were simple, the charge-sheet had been filed, co-accused had obtained bail, and material witnesses had turned hostile.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the applicant’s criminal antecedents, his role as the principal accused, and the seriousness of the offence.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the High Court’s and Court of Session’s power to grant bail, requiring consideration of the gravity and nature of the accusation, the prima facie material against the accused, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the likelihood of absconding.

The Court also considered the charged offences under the BNS and the settled bail principle that serious allegations, the use of a lethal weapon, the nature of the injuries, and a reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation may justify refusal of bail at the pre-trial stage.

The Court found that the allegations disclosed a deliberate and serious assault with an iron knife and that the injured persons had suffered bleeding stab wounds.

The material collected during investigation prima facie implicated the applicant, and the nature of the weapon, the alleged manner of assault, and the potential severity of the injuries indicated an intention to cause death or grievous harm.

Although one of the three additional witnesses did not support the prosecution, two injured witnesses continued to implicate the applicant; therefore, the Court held that the witness evidence did not create a sufficient change in circumstances after dismissal of the previous bail application.

Given that the material witnesses resided in the same locality, the Court also accepted the prosecution’s apprehension that release could result in threats, coercion, or undue influence.

The filing of the charge-sheet and the absence of any need for further custodial interrogation were insufficient, in light of the offence’s gravity and the prima facie evidence, to warrant bail.

The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within three months.

The Registry was directed to transmit the order to the trial court and list the matter after three months under “Direction Matters”.