Bail Denied Where Specific Allegations and Grievous Knife Injuries Distinguish Applicant From Co-Accused Granted Parity

The applicant, Manish Nishad, filed his first bail application following arrest in connection with Crime No. 711/2025.

According to the prosecution, on 06.11.2025, during the Matar Madhai Mela, the applicant and his companions allegedly assaulted the victim, Karan Verma.

The victim stated that the accused pushed him and stabbed him in the stomach with a knife with the intention to kill.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, seeking parity with co-accused Tilak Nishad, who was previously granted bail.

The State opposed the bail, noting the applicant was specifically named in the FIR and the victim suffered a protruded intestine requiring surgery and a 13-day hospitalization.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the nature of the evidence.

2. Whether the gravity of the offense and the specific role attributed to the applicant outweigh the grounds for bail.

The court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor to Section 439 CrPC) regarding regular bail.

It evaluated the penal provisions under Sections 109 (Attempt to murder), 3(5) (Joint liability), 190 (Unlawful assembly), and 191(2)(3) (Rioting) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court applied the principle that bail can be denied despite the bail of a co-accused if the applicant's role is distinguishable and the nature of injuries is grievous.

The court found the applicant's case distinguishable from the co-accused, Tilak Nishad, who was granted bail.

Specifically, while the co-accused was not named in the FIR, the applicant was specifically named as a primary assailant.

The court noted the severity of the medical evidence, highlighting that the assault resulted in a "protrusion of the intestine" and necessitated surgical intervention.

It reasoned that the grievous nature of the injuries and the specific overt act of stabbing attributed to the applicant created a high gravity of offense that precluded the grant of discretionary relief, regardless of his lack of criminal antecedents or duration of incarceration since 09.11.2025.

The first bail application was rejected. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial and a copy of the order was sent for compliance.