Bail granted despite two similar antecedents, given simple injuries, prolonged detention, and filing of the charge-sheet.

On 19 May 2026 at approximately 1:30 a.m., the complainant Anganbai and her husband Darshram Jangad, aged about 70 and 72 years, were sleeping at home.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant assaulted Darshram outside the house pursuant to an old dispute, closed the complainant inside by securing the door from outside, and thereafter entered the house carrying a wooden stick.

He allegedly abused and threatened the complainant and assaulted her by pressing her neck and using the stick and his hands.

Crime No. 228/2026 was registered at Police Station Sakti for offences under Sections 331(4), 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the operative portion refers to Section 115(1) instead of Section 115(2).

The applicant was arrested on 21 May 2026.

He asserted false implication arising from a family dispute and submitted that the injuries were simple.

The charge-sheet had been filed, but the applicant had two criminal antecedents of a similar nature from 2026.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the allegations and the antecedents.

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 331(4), 296, 351(3), 115 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of detention, the medical nature of the injuries, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The bail was made subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence, preventing unnecessary adjournments, and permitting action in case of misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution allegations that the applicant assaulted the complainant and her husband, threatened and abused the complainant, and pressed her neck while using a wooden stick.

However, for the limited purpose of bail, it considered that the injuries suffered were simple in nature, the applicant had remained in custody since 21 May 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for further custodial detention.

Although the applicant had two similar criminal antecedents, the Court, on an overall assessment of the circumstances, concluded that continued detention was not warranted and that his presence could be secured through stringent bail conditions.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and attendance, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.