Bail may be refused despite erroneous reasoning where prima facie evidence discloses grievous assault.

The petitioners, Sujit Behera and Suman Naik, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Rasol P.S. Case No. 101 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 290 of 2026, pending before the learned SDJM, Hindol.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted Susil Kumar Nayak and snatched ₹20,000 from him, attracting offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the judgment also records that the charge sheet was subsequently filed under Section 310(2) and other allied offences.

Although the petitioners contended that they were not named in the FIR, the injured allegedly identified them as the assailants.

The injured sustained two lacerations and a linear undisplaced fracture of the right parietal bone, opined to be grievous in nature.

The Sessions Court had rejected bail, but its order concerning Sujit Behera referred to allegations involving house trespass, possession of a knife and an attempt to outrage the modesty of the informant’s granddaughter—facts unrelated to the present case.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations, the injured’s identification of them, and the grievous injuries sustained by the victim?

Whether the erroneous reference to unrelated facts in the Sessions Court’s bail-rejection order demonstrated non-application of mind warranting interference by the High Court?

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to approach the Sessions Court afresh after submission of the charge sheet?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail in appropriate cases.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the accusations, the material connecting the accused with the offence, and the gravity of the injuries attributed to the assault.

The alleged offences were considered under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 61(2), and the charge-sheet provision referred to as Section 310(2).

The Court also applied the procedural principle that a bail order must be based on the facts and materials of the case, and that reliance on unrelated facts reflects non-application of mind.

Although the Court noted that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and that the charge sheet had already been filed, these circumstances did not outweigh the prosecution material at the bail stage.

The injured had specifically named the petitioners as assailants, and the medical evidence disclosed two lacerations and a grievous fracture of the right parietal bone.

The Court therefore declined to grant bail on the existing record.

At the same time, it found that the Sessions Judge had relied on allegations wholly unrelated to the present case while rejecting Sujit Behera’s bail application, amounting to non-application of mind.

Since the petitioners had approached the Sessions Court before submission of the charge sheet, the High Court considered it appropriate to preserve their liberty to seek fresh consideration from that court after the procedural position had changed.

However, it granted the petitioners liberty to approach the concerned Sessions Court afresh for bail.

The Court directed that a copy of the order be transmitted to the learned Sessions Judge, who was cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid relying on facts unrelated to the case while deciding matters affecting personal liberty.