Bail granted where accused performed limited role without specific overt act or recovery of incriminating weapons.

The applicant, a 20-year-old male, was arrested on October 26, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 667/2025 at Police Station Telibandha

It was alleged that the applicant, acting in furtherance of a common intention with co-accused persons, wrongfully restrained and assaulted the complainant, Gopal Nirmalkar, using a sharp-edged weapon (knife) with the intent to cause death

The applicant sought regular bail, contending that he was merely the driver of the vehicle, no weapon was recovered from him, and the injuries sustained by the victim were not on vital parts

The State opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offense and the use of a weapon

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his role in the alleged offense and the stage of the proceedings

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges were governed by Sections 109 (Attempt to Murder) and 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The court also relied on the established judicial principle that bail may be granted when the accused's role is limited, no specific overt act is attributed, the investigation is complete (charge-sheet filed), and there are no criminal antecedents

The court observed that while the applicant was allegedly involved with co-accused persons, his specific role was limited

The court noted that the applicant was primarily the driver of the vehicle and that the prosecution failed to recover any weapon or incriminating article from his possession

Crucially, the court evaluated the medical aspect, noting that the complainant's injuries were not on vital parts and were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

Furthermore, the court considered that the applicant had no prior criminal record, had been in custody since October 2025, and the filing of the charge-sheet indicated that his continued detention was unnecessary for the trial's conclusion

The court held that given the limited role of the applicant and the lack of specific overt acts, he was entitled to bail

The release was conditioned upon a personal bond with two sureties and strict adherence to procedural requirements, including a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments [para 7(i)] and a mandate to appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS [para 7(iv)]