Bail is warranted absent special grounds where alleged offences carry a maximum seven-year sentence.

The petitioner, the sole accused, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Crime No. 209/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 110, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute about waste and sticks being dumped near an Anganawadi Centre, the petitioner quarrelled with the complainant’s family, struck the complainant’s father on the head with a spade, assaulted the complainant’s brother, and threatened them.

The wound certificate recorded a simple lacerated injury, and the injured person was treated as an outpatient.

The prosecution opposed bail, citing the alleged acts, ongoing investigation, and the risk of witness tampering.

The Court noted the absence of material indicating prior antecedents and that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than two months.

1. Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for regular bail despite the alleged specific overt acts and the prosecution’s objections based on the ongoing investigation and risk of interference.

2. Whether the nature of the injuries, the maximum punishment, the petitioner’s roots in the jurisdiction, and the proposed bail conditions supported release pending trial.

The Court considered Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail, and the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 110, 352 and 351(2) of the BNS.

It applied the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that pre-trial custody should not operate as punishment for the alleged offences.

The Court also considered the seriousness and nature of the injuries, the maximum punishment stated to be seven years, the accused’s local residence and lack of shown antecedents, and whether prosecution concerns could be addressed through conditions.

Although the complaint attributed specific acts to the petitioner and investigation remained ongoing, the Court noted that the documented injury was simple, the injured person had been treated as an outpatient, and there was no indication of danger to life.

The alleged offences were not punishable by death or life imprisonment, and the Court stated that the maximum punishment was seven years.

It also found no material showing prior similar offending and considered the petitioner’s residence within the relevant jurisdiction and his period in judicial custody.

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s concerns about cooperation, witness interference and further investigation could be addressed through bail conditions.

Conditions require him to cooperate with the investigation and attend before the Investigating Officer and trial court when required; not tamper with witnesses or hamper the investigation or trial; and not commit similar or other offences while the case is pending.

The order provides that breach of any condition will result in cancellation of bail.