Bail granted considering parity, simple nature of injuries, and absence of incriminating material recovery.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on February 14, 2026

The prosecution alleged that on February 5, 2026, the applicant and co-accused intercepted a motorcycle near Shujalpur Bus Stand over a dispute regarding vehicle loan installments

It was alleged that the victims were verbally abused, one was struck with a stone, and another was assaulted with a knife by a co-accused, resulting in the theft of Rs. 50,000

The applicant was charged under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296(b), 126(2), 310(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicant argued parity with co-accused Lalit Malviya, who was granted bail on March 11, 2026

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the injuries, the applicant’s role, and the completion of the custodial investigation

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

It also relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence

Furthermore, the court considered the criteria for bail including the gravity of the offense, the nature of medical evidence (distinguishing between simple and grievous injuries), the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence

The court analyzed the discrepancy between the gravity of the charges and the actual evidence on record.

It noted that the Medical Officer classified the injuries sustained by the victims as "simple in nature"

The court observed that no specific allegation of assault with a weapon was made against the applicant, nor was any incriminating material seized from him

It found that the dispute appeared to be a "minor scuffle" over loan repayments rather than a heinous society-affecting crime

While the State highlighted four criminal antecedents, the court noted the applicant had not been convicted in any and was acquitted in one, suggesting a low risk of recidivism

Given that the investigation was nearly complete and a co-accused had already been granted bail, the court determined that continued incarceration of the 25-year-old applicant was unnecessary

The holding established that the applicant's custody was no longer required as the investigation was largely complete and the "simple" nature of the injuries did not warrant further detention

The release is subject to conditions including regular court attendance, non-commission of similar offenses, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or witnesses