Bail granted post-examination of material witnesses in cross-case scenario absent criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Jitendra, filed a third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 533/2024

The incident occurred on November 11, 2024, during a land demarcation process conducted by Revenue and Police officials.

An altercation broke out between neighboring agriculturists, during which the applicant allegedly assaulted the victim, Shailraj, with an iron rod on the back of his head

While the injuries were initially reported as simple, subsequent reports from a private hospital indicated fractures of the tibia and fibula, leading to the addition of Sections 117(2) and 118(2) of the BNS, 2023

The applicant has been in judicial custody since April 15, 2025

A cross-case (FIR No. 534/2024) was also registered against the complainant party for injuries sustained by the accused party

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the injuries and the progress of the trial

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It considered the substantive offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 115(2) (voluntary hurt), 296 (obscene acts/songs), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 3(5) (common intention), 117(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and 118(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons)

The court also relied on the principle of parity in bail, noting the release of a co-accused

the absence of criminal antecedents as a factor in assessing the risk of recidivism

The court examined the conflicting versions of the incident, noting the existence of a cross-case and the defense's argument that it was a "free fight" where both parties sustained injuries

It observed that while the prosecution alleged a grave injury involving fractures, the defense challenged the veracity of medical reports obtained from a private hospital

Crucially, the court noted that the material prosecution witnesses, including the injured Shailraj (PW-2), had already been examined, significantly reducing the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence

The court further observed that a co-accused, Harish, had already been granted bail

Given the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and his socio-economic status as a person with family responsibilities, the court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration

The court held that the contentions regarding the veracity of the evidence had prima facie merit and should be determined during the trial

The bail was granted subject to conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, non-commission of similar offences, and a prohibition against inducing or threatening witnesses

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