Bail Granted for Simple Injuries Despite Criminal Antecedents Following Charge Sheet Filing and Period of Incarceration

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail.

The prosecution alleged that on December 15, 2025, the applicant engaged in a dispute with the complainant over a demand for ₹200 for liquor.

Upon refusal, the applicant allegedly assaulted the complainant with a weapon, used obscene language, and issued death threats.

The applicant was arrested on December 16, 2025, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 119(1), and 118(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant argued his innocence, noting that injuries were simple in nature and that while he has seven criminal antecedents, five have been disposed of.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of injuries, his criminal antecedents, and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

Substantive charges were considered under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 296 (obscene acts/songs), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 119(1) (hurt to deter public servant - though applied here in a general dispute context), and 118(1) (voluntarily causing severe hurt by dangerous weapons).

Additionally, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act regarding the illegal possession and use of weapons were applied.

The Court also referenced procedural safeguards under Sections 209, 269, 351, and 84 of the BNSS to ensure the applicant’s future attendance during trial.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offences against the specific circumstances of the case.

It noted that the medical evidence characterized the victim's injuries as "simple in nature".

Although the applicant had seven criminal antecedents, the Court observed that five had already been disposed of and only two remained pending.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the applicant had already been incarcerated for nearly three months (since December 16, 2025).

Given that a trial conclusion would take considerable time, the Court reasoned that continued detention was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding is contingent upon strict conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear on all trial dates, and must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply or absconding will result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS.