BAIL GRANTED: Applicant receives regular bail after considering witness testimony and lack of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Hakam Singh Shrimal, filed a second application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail in connection with Crime No. 182 of 2025.

The charges against him include Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 296, 118(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

He has been in judicial custody since May 7, 2025, and his first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on November 19, 2025.

The incident occurred on April 23, 2025, when Sonu Parmar reported that Hakam Singh, Dhiraj, and two associates intercepted their vehicle, and Hakam Singh assaulted Dharmendra with a knife.

Medical examination revealed Dharmendra's chest injury was life-threatening.

Key prosecution witnesses, Sonu (PW-1), Dharmendra (PW-2), and Jeevan (PW-3), have been examined before the trial court, but Sonu (PW-1) did not support the prosecution in his evidence.

Applicant claims false implication, a clean past, family roots, and no likelihood of tampering with evidence, noting that co-accused have already been granted bail.

The State opposed the application due to the gravity of the offense but confirmed no criminal antecedents against the applicant, who is a 31-year-old agriculturist with dependent parents.

1. Whether the applicant, Hakam Singh Shrimal, should be granted regular bail given the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail.

It also implicitly applied the general principles governing bail jurisprudence, including the gravity of the alleged offense, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the accused's criminal antecedents, flight risk, socio-economic status, and the duration of custody pending trial.

The court also noted the examination of material prosecution witnesses.

The court considered the applicant's arguments that he was falsely implicated and that the material prosecution witnesses, including the injured Sonu (PW-1), Dharmendra (PW-2), and Jeevan (PW-3), had been examined before the trial court.

Notably, Sonu (PW-1) did not support the prosecution's case in his evidence.

The court acknowledged the applicant's clean past, family roots, property, and employment, indicating no history of evading the process of law or likelihood of tampering with evidence.

It further observed that the trial would take time to conclude and that co-accused Om Gol Ghate, Abhay, and Dhiraj had already been granted bail.

While the State opposed the application due to the gravity of the offense, it fairly conceded that no criminal antecedents were reported against the applicant, who is a 31-year-old agriculturist with dependent parents.

The court found that the contentions advanced by the applicant bore *prima facie* merit and were not manifestly baseless, and that there was no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

These factors, combined with the lack of flight risk or likelihood of recidivism or tampering, led the court to lean towards granting bail without prejudging the merits of the case.

The application was allowed.

It was directed that Hakam Singh be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to specific conditions.

These conditions include his presence at every hearing, not committing similar offenses, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and ensuring compliance with Section 309 of Cr.P.C./346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, during witness examination.

The order remains effective until the end of the trial, with a provision for the Trial Court to consider bail cancellation on merit if any preconditions are breached.