Common intention and active participation in violent assault preclude regular bail despite lack of prior criminal antecedents.

On the night of January 1, 2026, the complainant, Sudhir Kosle, was intercepted by the applicant (Jeet Deshlahare) and co-accused Ayush while walking to a shop.

The accused allegedly questioned the complainant regarding an individual named "Goldy" and subsequently attacked him in furtherance of a common intention to kill.

The applicant is alleged to have assaulted the victim with a stick, while the co-accused Ayush inflicted five to six blows to the victim's head with a sharp iron object.

A charge sheet was filed on February 23, 2026, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that he had been falsely implicated, the MLC did not support the specific role attributed to him, and he had been in custody for over two months.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the injuries and the specific role attributed to him.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant bail.

Substantively, the case involved Sections 109 (Attempt to murder), 117(2) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 3(5) (Joint liability/Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court followed the established judicial principle that bail depends on the gravity of the offense, the nature of the accusation, and the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim.

The Court scrutinized the material on record to determine the extent of the applicant's involvement. It noted that the applicant did not merely stand by but "actively participated" in the assault by using a stick, while his associate used a sharp iron object to inflict "multiple serious injuries" on the victim's head.

The Court rejected the applicant’s contention that the MLC did not support the prosecution's case, finding instead that the nature of the assault and the weapons used prima facie established active involvement in furtherance of a common intention under Section 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court weighed the applicant's arguments regarding his youth and duration of incarceration against the "severity of the injuries" and the "gravity of the offence," concluding that the violent nature of the incident outweighed the grounds for release.

The Court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the manner in which the offense was committed made it an unfit case for regular bail at that stage.

The Court further directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously.