Bail denied where specific overt act of firing weapon and causing injury is attributed to applicant.

The applicant, Pramod Mudgal, filed a third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS following the dismissal of two earlier applications in January and February 2026

The applicant was arrested on November 9, 2025, in connection with an incident on December 29, 2024, at the Lahchura site

It is alleged that the applicant, along with several others armed with firearms, arrived at the site, threatened the complainant party, and opened fire

Specifically, the applicant is accused of firing a gunshot that struck one Santosh Sharma in the left leg, while a co-accused (Sunil Sharma) fired the fatal shot that killed the victim, Ambrish

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of incarceration since November 2025, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the existence of a cross-case (Crime No. 3/2025) where the accused were already granted bail

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail despite the specific overt act of using a firearm attributed to him in a case involving a fatality

2. Whether the existence of a cross-case and the period of judicial custody outweigh the gravity of the offense and the apprehension of witness tampering

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court considered the underlying principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding bail, which necessitate a balance between the nature and gravity of the offense, the specific role of the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the potential for the accused to influence witnesses or obstruct the course of justice

the "cross-case" doctrine in bail proceedings

The court reasoned that while the applicant has been in custody since late 2025 and a charge-sheet has been filed, these factors are secondary to the "serious nature and gravity" of the offense

The court noted that the incident involved an organized arrival of armed individuals at a site, resulting in a death and multiple injuries

Specifically, the court emphasized the "specific overt act" attributed to the applicant—firing a gunshot that injured Santosh Sharma—which precludes the dismissal of the prosecution's case at this preliminary stage

The court rejected the argument that the cross-case warranted bail, noting that the cross-case was filed after an eight-day delay without supporting medical injuries, suggesting it was a "counterblast"

Finally, the court found the apprehension that the applicant might influence witnesses or obstruct justice to be valid given the violent nature of the incident

The court held that the nature of the allegations—involving firearms and a resulting death—prevailed over the period of custody

Consequently, the third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was dismissed