Bail granted where the applicant’s role was limited to threats and the co-accused caused the injuries.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 93/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur, for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Shiva @ Babu Marathi confronted injured Ravi Deep over an earlier dispute, and that Shiva and the applicant abused and threatened him pursuant to their common intention.

Shiva allegedly assaulted Ravi Deep with scissors, causing injuries to his right leg and the right side of his chest.

The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant had remained in custody since 5 April 2026.

The defence submitted that no recovery was made from the applicant, that no specific allegation of assault or causing injury was attributed to him, and that the principal assault was committed exclusively by co-accused Shiva.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had four criminal antecedents, although three cases had been disposed of and one remained pending.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The alleged offences were under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, including allegations concerning abusive or disorderly conduct, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, abetment, and common intention.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the nature of his attributed role, the absence of any allegation that he caused the injuries, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent delay, and safeguard the integrity of the trial.

The Court found that the material circumstances favoured release on bail.

Although the prosecution alleged that the applicant acted with the co-accused pursuant to a common intention, the specific allegation of assault with scissors and causing injuries was directed against Shiva @ Babu Marathi, not the applicant.

The investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.

The applicant had been in custody since 5 April 2026, and the Court considered that the trial was likely to take time.

The State’s objection regarding criminal antecedents was considered but did not outweigh these factors, particularly because the applicant’s alleged role was distinct from that of the principal assailant.

The High Court directed that Ayush Gupta be released in Crime No. 93/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court, to comply with proceedings in the event of non-appearance or proclamation, 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.