Bail granted where victim’s testimony contradicts prosecution version and injuries are opined as non-fatal.

The applicant was arrested on September 16, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 21/2025 at Police Station Madded, District Bijapur

The prosecution alleged that on September 15, 2025, the applicant assaulted the victim, Mancharla Damodar, with an axe at Bhoipara Chowk

Following an investigation and the filing of a charge-sheet, the applicant moved for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The applicant contended that the victim’s own deposition (Annexure A-3) stated the injuries were sustained by falling into a drainage ditch, and the medical query report indicated the injuries were not fatal

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s three previous criminal antecedents

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the allegations, the victim's deposition, and the applicant's criminal history

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 109 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Conditions for bail based on Section 269 of the BNS (failure to appear), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 of the BNS (non-appearance in obedience to an order from a public servant)

The court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the procedural status of the case and the evidence on record.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had remained in judicial custody since September 16, 2025

Although the State emphasized the applicant's three criminal antecedents, the court placed significant weight on the fact that the trial’s conclusion would take considerable time

The court considered the applicant’s argument regarding the victim’s deposition, which contradicted the prosecution's narrative of an intentional axe assault

Balancing the period of detention already served with the likelihood of a protracted trial, the court determined that further incarceration was unnecessary and that bail could be granted with stringent conditions to ensure the applicant’s participation in the trial

The court held that while the allegations were serious, the filing of the charge-sheet and the duration of custody justified regular bail

The release is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend every hearing personally or through counsel as per Section 269 of the BNS, and must appear for charge framing and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, failing which the trial court may revoke the liberty of bail