Bail granted where ballistic report and medical evidence fail to substantiate alleged gunshot injury.

The applicant, a 21-year-old student, filed his first application for regular bail in connection with Crime No. 206 of 2025.

It is alleged that on September 8, 2025, the applicant and a co-accused intercepted the victims, Akram and Washim Lala, and the applicant fired a gunshot at Akram, causing injuries to his leg and hand.

The applicant was arrested on September 23, 2025, and a country-made pistol was allegedly recovered from him.

Charges were registered under Sections 109(1), 296, 351(2), 126(2), 3(5), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant contended that the MLC report showed only a simple lacerated wound with no pallets recovered, and the ballistic report did not substantiate the use of the seized weapon.

The investigation is complete, and the final report has been submitted.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the medical evidence, the applicant's age, and the progress of the trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), which provides the High Court with discretionary power to grant bail.

Established bail principles, including the assessment of the gravity of the offense, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice, the potential for tampering with evidence, and the consideration of the accused's criminal antecedents and socio-economic status.

The Court evaluated the merit of the applicant’s claims, noting that the medical evidence (MLC report) described the victim's injury as a simple lacerated wound and confirmed that no bullet or pallet was recovered from the body.

The Court further observed that the ballistic report failed to link the seized firearm to the alleged gunshot.

While the State pointed to one criminal antecedent, the Court noted that the applicant had no prior convictions and was a young student dependent on his family.

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete and the final report filed, there was no immediate necessity for continued incarceration, especially given the likelihood that the trial would be prolonged.

The Court found no substantial risk of recidivism or witness tampering, particularly noting the criminal history of the complainant party.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, must not commit similar offenses, and must not induce or threaten witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations were for the purpose of the bail application only and should not influence the merits of the ongoing trial.