Bail granted where injuries were not documented as life-threatening and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 81/2026, registered for offences under Sections 109, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, during a dispute over cultivation of agricultural land, the applicants and co-accused assaulted Krishna Kumar Sahu and Aman Kumar with axes and lathis, causing injuries to their heads and vital parts.

The applicants relied on the parties’ land dispute and counter-FIR, the absence of material showing life-threatening injuries, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, their time in custody since 18 July 2026, and the likely delay in trial.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the injuries and a criminal antecedent attributed to Akhilesh.

Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the nature of the injuries and Akhilesh’s stated criminal antecedent warranted refusal of bail.

The applications were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The Court assessed the case-specific circumstances, including the material concerning the injuries, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period in custody, the anticipated duration of trial, and the fact that a co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail.

The Court noted that the case arose from a land dispute and that both sides had lodged FIRs.

It found no document on record establishing that the injured persons had sustained life-threatening injuries and also considered that co-accused Bindu had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench.

Weighing these circumstances with the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ custody since 18 July 2026, and the likelihood that trial would take further time, the Court concluded that bail was justified.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them to be available for police interrogation when required, not to influence or dissuade persons acquainted with the case, and not to act prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not affect the trial Court’s independent determination of the case.