Bail denied where the applicant faced allegations of inflicting fatal knife injuries, despite co-accused receiving bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 169/2020 registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur, for offences under Sections 341, 148, 149, 294, 323, 325, 506 and 302 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 25 October 2020, the applicant intercepted Vinod Batra and his companions, abused them, called co-accused persons and assaulted Vinod; subsequently, when others reached the spot, the accused persons assaulted Amit Gain, including alleged knife injuries to his abdomen and thigh.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 19 July 2022.

In the second bail application, he relied on the examination of injured witness Vinod Batra, the alleged role of co-accused Ashwini in inflicting the knife injuries, the grant of bail to three co-accused persons, his custody since 28 October 2020 and the incomplete trial.

The State opposed bail, contending that the applicant himself had inflicted the fatal knife injury and that the co-accused released on bail had not been alleged to have used a fatal weapon.

Sixteen of twenty-nine prosecution witnesses had been examined, leaving thirteen witnesses to be examined.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving an allegation of causing fatal knife injuries and an earlier rejection of bail on merits.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons, prolonged custody and the incomplete trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, subject to judicial assessment of the accusation, supporting material, seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s role, the stage of trial and the possibility of a fair and effective trial.

A subsequent bail application after rejection on merits requires consideration of the circumstances existing at the later stage, but the earlier rejection remains a relevant factor unless sufficient grounds for a different view are shown.

Bail on the ground of parity is not automatic where the applicant’s alleged role is materially graver than that of the co-accused seeking comparison.

The offences alleged included murder under Section 302 of the IPC and offences under the Arms Act.

The Court treated the earlier rejection of bail on merits as a significant circumstance.

It found a serious allegation against the applicant concerning the infliction of knife injuries on the abdomen of deceased Amit Gain.

Although the applicant relied on the release of three co-accused persons, the Court held that parity was unavailable because no allegation of assault with a fatal weapon had been made against those co-accused.

The Court also noted that thirteen prosecution witnesses remained to be examined, and therefore the incomplete trial did not, at that stage, outweigh the gravity of the allegation and the applicant’s alleged role.

On the material before it, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.