Bail granted considering the cross-case, applicant’s injuries, bail parity, and superficial burn injuries.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 128/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, for offences under Sections 124(1) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, during an altercation on 13 May 2026, the applicant threatened the complainant party and threw a corrosive chemical substance allegedly used for cleaning brass utensils. Vinay Gauli, Phagu Nirmalkar and Lucky Bawane allegedly sustained superficial burn injuries.

The applicant contended that the incident resulted in a cross-case, Crime No. 127/2026, registered on the report of his side against Vijay @ Monu Sonkar and others. He also claimed to have suffered a head injury during the occurrence, had no criminal antecedents, and had remained in custody since 17 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seizure of a partially broken bottle bearing the label “Sora Tezab (Nitric Acid)” and a plastic bottle containing approximately 1–2 ml of chemical substance, while acknowledging that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the allegations involving use of a corrosive chemical substance?

Whether the existence of a cross-case, the applicant’s own injury, parity with persons granted bail in the counter-case, the absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the superficial nature of the injuries justified grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the surrounding circumstances of the occurrence, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the status of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, the medical nature of the injuries, and parity with co-accused or persons involved in the counter-case.

The offences alleged were under Sections 124(1) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

No separate judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation and the seizure of articles allegedly connected with the use of nitric acid.

However, it found relevant that the occurrence had generated a cross-case, indicating that the incident arose from an altercation between two groups rather than being wholly unilateral; the applicant had also sustained a head injury in the same occurrence.

The Court further relied on the fact that persons accused in the counter-case, including Vijay Sonkar and Yogesh Sonkar, had already been granted bail, that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had been in custody since 17 May 2026.

The medical material indicating superficial burn injuries and burning sensation, together with the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, persuaded the Court that continued detention was not necessary at that stage.

Suraj Kasar was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions requiring his attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement, and compliance with the consequences prescribed for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.