Bail granted for grievous assault citing prolonged detention and lack of radiological evidence for internal damage.

On July 4, 2025, the injured party, Ved Prakash Sori, disconnected the electricity supply to the applicant’s residence due to unpaid bills

The applicant, Anoop Sori, allegedly confronted the injured, used abusive language, and assaulted him with a tangiya (axe), causing a lacerated wound on the frontal region of the head

An FIR was lodged on July 5, 2025, at Police Station Gariyaband, and the applicant was arrested the same day

While the prosecution relied on an MLC report labeling the injury as "grievous," the defense contended that no X-ray report was provided to substantiate internal damage

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, but the trial court had not yet examined any witnesses

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the period of incarceration and the status of the trial

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant regular bail

Sections 296 (Obscene acts and songs) and 109(1) (Punishment of abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Section 269 of the BNS regarding non-appearance of the accused, Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons, and Section 351 of the BNSS concerning the recording of statements

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations, involving a weapon-based assault, against the procedural history of the case

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since July 5, 2025, and despite the filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges, the trial had remained stagnant without the examination of any witnesses

The court placed significant weight on the absence of an X-ray report to corroborate the medical opinion of "grievous injury" and the likelihood that the trial would be prolonged

The court determined that continued detention was unnecessary provided that the applicant's presence at trial was secured through stringent conditions, such as prohibiting adjournments when witnesses are present and requiring personal attendance for critical trial stages

The holding was conditional upon the applicant: (i) not seeking adjournments during witness presence; (ii) appearing on every date of hearing; and (iii) appearing in person for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

The court authorized the trial court to revoke bail or initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS/BNSS in the event of default