Bail granted considering completed investigation, complainant’s consent, and likely trial delay.

The appellants were arrested in connection with an incident in which they and three co-accused allegedly assaulted four persons using an iron rod, a wooden stick, a knife, and their hands and fists.

The injured persons included one who sustained injuries described by the State as grievous; the other three sustained simple injuries.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 191(1), 296 and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The Special Judge rejected the appellants’ regular-bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

In their appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the appellants relied on the completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, time already spent in custody, lack of antecedents, and the complainant’s consent to bail.

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, and the underlying regular-bail application was made under Section 483 of the BNSS.

In deciding whether bail was appropriate, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the extent of the injuries, the appellants’ criminal antecedents, the status of the investigation and charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely time for trial, and the complainant’s position.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a separate statutory test concerning the alleged SC/ST Act offences.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations against the circumstances favouring release.

It noted that three of the four injured persons had sustained simple injuries, while one person’s injuries were described as grievous; the complainant had consented to bail; the appellants had no previous criminal antecedents; the charge-sheet had been filed; and the appellants had been in custody since 15 January 2026, with trial likely to take considerable time.

On that combined assessment, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found bail appropriate.

Bail was subject to conditions concerning adjournments, attendance, and personal presence at specified stages of trial; the Court also requested that the trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible.