Bail Granted where Injuries although Grievous were Not Dangerous to Life and Charge-Sheet Filed.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application seeking regular bail following his arrest on 26.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 275/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on 24.08.2025, the applicant and two others intercepted the complainant and his friend near Bilaspur Railway Station, demanding money for liquor.

Upon refusal, the accused allegedly assaulted the victim, Sameer Yadav, with a knife, causing injuries to his neck, waist, and chest.

While the FIR was initially against unknown persons, the applicant was subsequently implicated and a charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and noted he had two criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the injuries and the duration of his custody.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

It also considered the substantive offenses under Sections 296 (Obscene acts/songs), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 117(2) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 119(1) (Assault/criminal force to deter public servant), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that while the victim sustained "grievous" injuries to vital areas like the neck and chest, the medical evidence suggested these injuries were "not dangerous to life".

The Court took into account that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence.

Furthermore, the applicant had been in custody since 26.08.2025 (approximately six months), and the Court observed that the trial was likely to take significant time to conclude.

Despite the State's objection regarding the applicant's two criminal antecedents, the Court determined that the combination of the non-life-threatening nature of the injuries and the length of pretrial detention justified the exercise of discretion in favor of liberty.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant's strict adherence to trial proceedings, including prohibitions against seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandates for personal appearance during key trial stages (charge framing, Section 351 BNSS statements), and warnings that failure to appear would trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS.