Bail denied where applicant’s specific knife attack caused a life-threatening chest injury.

On 4 March 2026, during Holi celebrations near Shani Temple, Tulsinawara, the applicant and three co-accused allegedly abused and threatened the complainant and others.

Later that evening, they allegedly assaulted the complainant and Ravi Yadav. The applicant was specifically alleged to have inflicted a knife blow on Ravi Yadav’s right chest, causing a serious, life-threatening injury that required treatment at multiple hospitals, including Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, where the injured remained admitted for approximately six days.

Crime No. 99/2026 was registered under Sections 109(1), 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the injury was not sufficiently deep, he had no criminal antecedents, he had been in custody since 5 March 2026, and three co-accused had already been granted bail.

The complainant had been examined and had supported the prosecution case against the applicant.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegation, the seriousness of the injury, and the evidence on record?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the three co-accused who had been granted bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the seriousness of the injury, the medical evidence, and the evidence already recorded during trial.

The principle of parity applies only where the role and allegations against the applicant are substantially similar to those against the co-accused who obtained bail; parity is unavailable where the applicant is alleged to have played a materially more serious and distinct role.

The Court found that the applicant’s case was materially different from that of the co-accused.

Unlike the co-accused, who were allegedly involved only in assaulting the injured with hands and fists, the applicant was specifically alleged to have caused a knife injury to the right side of the injured’s chest.

The injured required referral to Mekahara Hospital and remained hospitalized for about six days; the medical opinion indicated that the injury was life-threatening and could have resulted in death without timely treatment.

Further, the complainant had already testified and supported the allegation that the applicant used a knife.

In light of the distinct role attributed to the applicant, the gravity of the injury, and the evidence that had emerged, the Court held that the principle of parity did not justify bail.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that the bail granted to the co-accused did not establish parity because their alleged roles were less serious.

The bail application in Crime No. 99/2026 was accordingly rejected.

The Court, however, expressed the expectation that the trial Court would endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, subject to there being no legal impediment.