Bail Rejected for Accused Using Deadly Weapon Despite Parity Claim with Co-Accused Using Sticks

The applicant, Sahettar Sahu, sought regular bail after being arrested on 08.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 06/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on 03.01.2026, due to prior enmity regarding a complaint against the village Sarpanch, the applicant and co-accused intercepted the complainant.

The applicant allegedly used a knife to cause injuries to the complainant’s shoulder and abdomen.

When the complainant and his relatives later attempted to reach the police station, the accused persons allegedly attacked them again with sticks, rods, and stones, causing life-threatening head injuries to two relatives.

The applicant contended that the case was a result of village rivalry and pointed to a cross-FIR filed by his side on 05.01.2026, alleging he was the initial victim of assault.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the principle of parity with co-accused persons who were previously granted bail.

2. Whether the specific overt act of using a deadly weapon (knife) disentitles the applicant from bail despite the filing of the charge-sheet and absence of criminal antecedents.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The court considered various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 191(2) & 191(3) (rioting/armed with deadly weapon), 190 (unlawful assembly), 118(1) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 109(1) (attempt to murder), and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy).

The court relied on the principle that parity in bail cannot be claimed if the roles and weapons attributed to the accused are distinctly more severe or different from those of co-accused.

While the applicant's counsel argued for parity with co-accused persons Bhagirathi Yadav, Vijay Sahu, and Daras Yadav—who were granted bail—the court noted a significant distinction: the co-accused were alleged to have used only hands and sticks, whereas the applicant was specifically attributed with inflicting injuries using a knife.

The court observed that medical evidence substantiated grievous and life-threatening injuries to two victims, reflecting the severity of the attack.

Despite the applicant’s claim of a "cross-version" and the filing of a charge-sheet, the court found that the prima facie evidence of using a deadly weapon on vital body parts outweighed the factors favoring bail, such as the duration of detention or lack of prior antecedents.

The bail application was rejected. The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and directed the office to provide a copy of the order to the trial court.