Bail Refused Where Specific Role of Principal Assailant Using Deadly Weapon Overrides Pleas of Parity

The applicant filed a first bail application after being arrested for an incident occurring on 06.10.2024.

According to the prosecution, the applicant, along with co-accused persons, intercepted the victim (Bunty Deep) due to previous enmity, abused him, and assaulted him.

Specifically, while co-accused persons used fists and blows, the applicant allegedly used a knife to inflict grievous injuries to the victim’s chest, abdomen, and back, causing his intestines to protrude.

The applicant was arrested on 11.10.2024.

Counsel for the applicant argued for bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused, lack of criminal antecedents, and discrepancies in the victim's statement.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the specific overt acts attributed to him and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim?

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding regular bail.

Offences charged include Sections 296 (Obscene acts/songs), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 109 (Abetment), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25(1-B)(B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act.

The gravity of the offense and the specific role of the accused—distinguishing between general allegations and principal acts of violence—are primary factors in determining bail eligibility.

The Court rejected the applicant’s plea for parity and the claim of being falsely implicated, observing that the material on record prima facie established the applicant as the "principal assailant".

While other co-accused were alleged to have used only fists and blows, the applicant was specifically accused of inflicting multiple knife blows.

The Court emphasized the "seriousness of the offence" and the "active involvement" of the applicant, noting that the injuries were life-threatening (protrusion of intestines), which reflects a clear intention to cause death.

The Court found the gravity of the allegations outweighed the arguments regarding time spent in custody and lack of criminal history.

The bail application was rejected.

The Court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months.