Bail granted for simple injuries based on parity and absence of substantial criminal antecedents.

The applicants, Aman and Ankit, were arrested on 14.02.2026 following an FIR (Crime No. 39/2026) registered at Police Station Shujalpur City

The prosecution alleges that on 05.02.2026, the applicants and other co-accused intercepted the victims over a vehicle loan installment dispute, resulting in verbal abuse and physical assault where one victim was struck with a stone and another with a knife

It was further alleged that Rs. 50,000 was stolen from a victim’s pocket during the scuffle

The applicants, aged 20 and 21 and students by profession, contended that the incident was a minor scuffle and they were falsely implicated with charges of loot to increase the gravity of the case

The medical report categorized the victims' injuries as "simple in nature"

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given their age, student status, and the nature of the injuries caused?

2. Whether the existence of criminal antecedents against the applicants (one against Aman and four against Ankit) justifies the denial of bail despite the lack of prior convictions?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail

It considered the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused, Lalit Malviya, had already been granted bail

The court further applied the principle that in the absence of substantial criminal past or previous convictions for major offences, and considering the socio-economic status of young offenders, bail should be favored to prevent recidivism and hardship

The court observed that while the State opposed bail citing the gravity of the offence and criminal history, the medical evidence confirmed that the injuries sustained by the victims were simple rather than grievous

The court noted that no incriminating material was seized directly from the applicants and that the investigation was nearing completion, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary

Regarding the criminal antecedents, the court found that the pending matters did not involve prior convictions for major offences and did not establish a likelihood of the applicants fleeing or tampering with evidence

The court reasoned that the young age and student status of the applicants, combined with their socio-economic dependencies, outweighed the need for continued incarceration during the trial

It directed that Aman and Ankit be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety of the same amount

The holding was subject to several conditions, including that the applicants must not commit similar offences, must attend all court hearings, and must not induce or threaten witnesses

The court held that there was no compelling reason to continue the incarceration of the young applicants