Bail granted where knife injuries are non-vital and medical opinion remains inconclusive.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 80/2026 registered at Police Station Maudahapara, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 109 and 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 3 May 2026 at approximately 11:00 p.m., the applicant’s motorcycle came into contact with the complainant Mohd. Afaque’s motorcycle. The applicant allegedly abused the complainant and assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries to his cheek and right leg. An FIR was registered on the basis of the complainant’s oral report.

The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the complainant and his friend had assaulted him with a knife, and that he had acted in self-defence. He also stated that he had lodged a counter-FIR, Crime No. 81/2026, against the complainant. The applicant had been in custody since 4 May 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail, referring to the knife assault and submitting that no definite medical opinion had been given regarding the nature of the injuries and that no query report was available.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations, nature of injuries, period of detention, absence of criminal antecedents, and filing of the charge-sheet?

Whether the circumstances of the alleged knife assault and the absence of a definite medical opinion regarding the injuries warranted continued detention pending trial?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material injury alleged, the period of custody, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the stage of investigation, and the likelihood of the trial taking time.

The Court also considered the absence of a definite medical opinion regarding the nature of the injuries and the absence of a query report as relevant circumstances in favour of bail.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the applicant had abused the complainant and assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries to the cheek and right leg.

However, it found that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body, that the doctor had not given a definite opinion regarding their nature, and that no query report had been produced.

These factors, together with the applicant’s custody since 4 May 2026, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that the trial was likely to take time, reduced the justification for continued pre-trial detention.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as required, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.