Bail granted to accused with lesser overt acts; denied to alleged fatal assailant.

The complainant’s father was allegedly intercepted while travelling by car on 25 January 2026.

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1 assaulted him with hands and legs, accused No. 2 struck him with a stone on the chest and head, and accused No. 11 also assaulted him.

The injured man died on 15 February 2026; the post-mortem report attributed death to a head injury.

The petitioners—accused Nos. 1, 2 and 11—sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after their bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected.

The charge-sheet invoked Sections 103(1), 109(1), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324(4) and 351(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether accused Nos. 1, 2 and 11 should be enlarged on regular bail in light of the allegations, the eyewitness statements and the medical material

2. Whether the distinct overt acts attributed to the accused warranted different outcomes on their bail applications

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The Court assessed the charge-sheet material, including the eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, to determine whether the individual allegations and alleged roles justified release at this stage.

The order cites no precedent or further express bail test.

The Court found prima facie material connecting accused No. 2 to the fatal injury: an eyewitness stated that he struck the deceased on the head with a stone, the stone was seized, and the post-mortem report identified the head injury as the cause of death.

It therefore declined bail to accused No. 2.

By contrast, the allegations against accused Nos. 1 and 11 were confined to assault with hands and legs; considering those attributed acts and the material on record, the Court held they could be released on bail.

Bail was granted to accused Nos. 1 and 11, subject to conditions including execution of a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, cooperation with the investigating officer, refraining from similar offences, and fortnightly attendance before the police for six months or until the final report was filed, whichever occurred earlier.

Bail was refused to accused No. 2.

The operative order refers to the beneficiaries as “accused No. 1 and 3 and 11” and the conditions as applying to “Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3”; read with the Court’s reasoning, these references appear to indicate accused Nos. 1 and 11.