Bail Granted Despite Similar Antecedent After Grievously Injured Witness Failed to Support Prosecution

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant attacked three persons with a knife, causing multiple injuries; one injured person sustained grievous abdominal injuries and underwent surgery.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had been in custody since 12 January 2026. The injured witnesses had been examined, with the grievously injured witness not supporting the prosecution. Of 25 witnesses, 10 had been examined by the time of the application.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the progress of the trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court to consider an application for regular bail.

In exercising that power, the Court assessed the circumstances relevant to release, including the status of the evidence, criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody and likely time required to conclude the trial. The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory test.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the alleged knife attack and the grievous injury against the fact that the injured witnesses had already testified and the grievously injured witness had not supported the prosecution.

It also considered that the applicant had one live antecedent of a similar nature, but that the charge-sheet was filed, the applicant had been in custody since 12 January 2026, and the trial remained incomplete, with only 10 of 25 witnesses examined. On balance, it found those circumstances sufficient to grant bail, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and failure to appear before the trial Court on each date until disposal of the trial. The observations were confined to the bail application, and the trial Court was to decide the case on its merits.