Bail is declined where grievous knife injuries are alleged and the trial is nearing completion.

The applicants, Raj Nag and Karan Yadav, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 297/2025 registered at Police Station Mahasamund for offences under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 309(6), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, on 30 June 2025, three persons entered the complainant’s tent, demanded money, assaulted the complainant’s brother with fists and a knife, caused injuries to his leg and abdomen, threatened to kill him, and subsequently snatched the complainant’s mobile phone.

The applicants had been in custody since 9 July 2025. Their first bail application had previously been rejected on merits on 5 December 2025.

In the second application, they relied principally on the period of custody, the examination of the Investigating Officer, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of the trial.

The State opposed bail, emphasizing the alleged knife assault causing grievous injuries and the advanced stage of the trial.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the alleged knife assault causing grievous injuries?

2. Whether the examination of the Investigating Officer and the advanced stage of the trial justified grant of bail in the circumstances of the case?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving an accused in custody.

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 309(6), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning the alleged infliction of injuries, robbery or snatching-related conduct, and acts committed by persons sharing common intention.

The Court assessed the seriousness and nature of the alleged offence, the use of a knife, the grievous nature of the injuries, the procedural history including rejection of the first bail application on merits, and the stage of the trial while exercising its discretionary bail jurisdiction.

The Court found that the allegations involved a knife assault that caused grievous injuries to the injured person.

Although the applicants had remained in custody since 9 July 2025 and the Investigating Officer had already been examined, those circumstances did not outweigh the gravity of the alleged conduct.

The Court also treated the examination of the Investigating Officer as indicating that the trial was at the verge of completion, rather than as a reason to release the applicants on bail.

In light of the serious allegations, the nature of the injuries, and the advanced stage of the trial, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants.

However, it directed the trial Court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial Court for information and compliance.