Bail granted to female accused as primary role of assault is attributed to co-accused.

The applicant filed her first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) after being arrested on January 8, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 07/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on January 7, 2026, the applicant and her husband verbally abused the complainant, Bhavsingh Jangde.

It was further alleged that while the husband assaulted the complainant with a steel rod, causing grievous injuries, the applicant emerged with a knife but did not inflict any physical harm.

The applicant was charged under Sections 296, 351(2), 109, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant argued she was falsely implicated, citing her gender, the lack of specific injury attributed to her, and her continued incarceration since early January.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given her role in the alleged offence and her status as a woman.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The substantive charges were considered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 296 (Obscene acts/utterances), Section 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), Section 109 (Abetment), and Section 3(5) (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

The court also invoked procedural safeguards under Sections 269 (Non-appearance), 84 (Proclamation for person absconding), and 209 (Failure to appear) of the BNS to frame the conditions of bail.

The court noted that the primary overt act of assault with a steel rod, which resulted in grievous injuries, was specifically attributed to the co-accused husband rather than the applicant.

The court highlighted that the applicant is a woman and that, notably, she had not caused any physical injuries to the victim.

By distinguishing the applicant’s case from that of the co-accused, the court found that the evidence against her was primarily limited to verbal abuse and carrying a weapon that was not used to cause harm.

Furthermore, considering the applicant had been in custody since January 8, 2026, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the court determined that further detention was unnecessary.

It held that the applicant's role was distinguishable from the main accused and her gender further supported the grant of bail.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant not seeking adjournments during evidence, remaining present on all trial dates, and appearing personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Any breach of these conditions would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.