Bail granted despite criminal antecedents where complicity is doubtful and no test identification parade was conducted.

The complainant, Ravi, was assaulted with a knife by an unknown assailant on 04.10.2025 while traveling in an e-magic rickshaw in Ujjain

Initially, the complainant and two eye-witnesses (Jagdish and Shyamlal) reported only one unknown assailant

Subsequently, the rickshaw driver, Akbar, provided a statement implicating the applicant, Shoeb Akhtar, and another individual for allegedly exhorting the main assailant, Shahrukh, to commit the assault

The applicant was arrested on 06.10.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 109(1) (punishment of abetment), 296 (obscene acts), and 118(1) (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The State opposed the bail application, citing the applicant's 13 criminal antecedents

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the discrepancies in witness statements and the applicant's criminal history

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

It further relied on established judicial principles governing bail, which require the court to balance the gravity of the alleged offence and criminal antecedents against the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or recidivism

The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the initial Dehati Nalishi or the complainant’s first statement, which mentioned only one unknown assailant

It noted that the allegation of "exhortation" arose later through the driver's statement and that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to verify the applicant's involvement

Regarding the 13 criminal antecedents, the Court accepted the applicant's contention that he had been acquitted in five cases and had no prior convictions

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete, the final report filed, and the applicant is a 22-year-old labourer with family responsibilities, continued incarceration was unnecessary

The Court found the applicant's complicity prima facie doubtful and determined that the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing was low

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with one surety of the same amount. The Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must not commit further offences and must mark his presence at Police Station Dewas Gate, Ujjain, on the first Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial