Bail Granted to Student Accused in Case of Counter-Complaints Alleging Over-Implication and Lack of Criminal Antecedents

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 252/2025.

The prosecution alleges that an altercation over parking a car escalated into a physical scuffle between neighboring families.

It is alleged that the applicant (Vishal) and his family members assaulted the victims with iron rods and wooden sticks.

A cross-case (Crime No. 251/2025) was also registered against the complainant's party.

The applicant has been in custody since April 12, 2025.

His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on September 19, 2025.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the parity with co-accused persons who were granted anticipatory bail.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court and Court of Session to grant bail.

The court also considered the gravity of the offences punishable under Sections 109, 125, 115(2), 296, 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the principles of judicial discretion in bail matters, emphasizing the socio-economic status of the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that while the State opposed the bail due to the gravity of the offence, it admitted that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

The Court noted that the incident stemmed from a minor parking dispute that turned into a "physical scuffle" between neighbors where both sides sustained injuries.

The Court highlighted that the applicant is a 23-year-old student whose continued incarceration causes undue hardship to his family and studies.

Furthermore, the investigation is complete, the final report has been filed, and material witnesses have already been examined.

The Court found merit in the parity argument, observing that co-accused family members (Ashok, Rahul, Seemabai, and Manjubai) had already been granted anticipatory bail.

Given these circumstances, the Court found no compelling reason to believe the applicant would flee or influence witnesses.

The holding was based on the applicant's young age, lack of criminal history, and the fact that the trial would take time to conclude.

The release is subject to standard conditions, including regular attendance at hearings and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or committing further offences.