Bail denied where vital-part sickle injuries and forensic evidence support specific assault allegations.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Crime No. 133/2026, registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, during a Holi gathering, co-accused persons fatally assaulted Mohit Dhivar, while the applicant arrived later and attacked Kamal Narayan Yadav with a sickle, injuring his chin, neck and chest.

The injured person identified the applicant in a statement recorded during the investigation, and the FSL report found human blood on the seized sickle.

The applicant had been in custody since 5 March 2026; the charge-sheet was filed on 29 May 2026.

She relied on her lack of criminal antecedents, the medical evidence and the allegedly non-life-threatening nature of the injuries.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court assessed the bail request by considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific material collected during investigation, the nature and location of the injuries, the alleged weapon, and the applicant’s circumstances.

The Court cited no precedent.

The Court distinguished the applicant’s alleged conduct from the fatal assault on Mohit Dhivar, which was attributed to co-accused persons, but treated the separate allegation against the applicant as serious.

The injured person specifically attributed the assault to her; the injuries included an incised wound to the neck, and the alleged use of a sickle raised concern because it was capable of causing serious bodily harm.

The Court also considered the human-blood finding on the seized sickle.

Although the injuries were not specifically described as life-threatening and the applicant had no antecedents, was a woman, and faced a completed investigation, the Court found those considerations insufficient to outweigh the allegations and supporting material at that stage.