Bail Granted for Assault Where Medical Evidence Confirmed Non-Grievous Injuries and Absence of Criminal Antecedents

The applicant, Altaf Ansari, was arrested on February 8, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 99/2026 at Police Station Hanumantal, Jabalpur.

The prosecution alleges that following a minor altercation over a vehicle collision (dashing of an Activa), the applicant assaulted the victim, Musahid Khan, with a knife, causing injuries to his right thigh and knee.

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

The applicant sought regular bail, contending that the medical report showed no life-threatening or vascular injuries and that he had been in custody since the date of the incident.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the injuries and his lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Established principles regarding pretrial detention, specifically focusing on the gravity of the offense, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

Section 115(2), 296, 109(1), and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, under which the applicant was charged.

The court observed that the MLC (Medico-Legal Case) report indicated no major vascular injury and that the victim was discharged only two days after the incident, suggesting the injuries were not life-threatening.

The court noted that the investigation was complete and the final report submitted.

Analyzing the applicant’s background, the court found him to be a 20-year-old tailor with no prior criminal history (no criminal antecedents) and stable family roots, which minimized the risk of him fleeing from justice or recidivism.

The court reasoned that since the veracity of the prosecution's claims regarding "intent" would be determined at trial—which would take time—continued incarceration of a young individual without criminal history served no compelling purpose.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at hearings, non-commission of further offenses, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.