Bail Granted Where Specific Allegation Against Accused Entailed Simple Injury During a Free Fight Dispute

The appellant filed a first criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging an order dated 11/06/2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Sheopur, which denied his bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The appellant was arrested on 31/03/2026 following a land dispute where accused persons allegedly used caste-based slurs and assaulted the complainant’s side with weapons.

While co-accused Chokheram was specifically linked to a life-threatening injury (Section 109(2) BNS/307 IPC), the specific allegation against the appellant was causing a simple injury to one Sarupi Bai’s leg using a lathi.

Whether the impugned order denying bail should be set aside and the appellant extended the benefit of bail considering the nature of allegations and the period of incarceration.

Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding the maintainability of appeals against bail orders.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) relating to bail.

Mandatory victim notification requirement under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.

The court evaluated the necessity of bail based on the principle of individual roles in a "free fight" scenario and the severity of injuries relative to the specific sections of the B.N.S. (Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109(2), etc.).

The Court analyzed the case by distinguishing the appellant's specific role from that of the co-accused.

It noted the defense contention that the altercation was a "free fight," requiring an assessment of individual acts.

Crucially, the Court observed that while an attempt-to-murder charge (Section 109(2) BNS) was added due to an injury caused by co-accused Chokheram, the injury attributed to the appellant was simple in nature.

The Court further took into account that the appellant had been in custody since 31/03/2026, the trial was likely to be protracted, and there was no evidence suggesting the appellant was a flight risk or would evade justice.

The Court directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the trial, refraining from threatening witnesses, and not leaving India without prior permission.