Common Intention Not Presumed for All Participants in Spontaneous Altercations Lacking Attributed Fatal Blows

The four petitioners sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 533/2025 involving a physical altercation at "Divine Farms" on December 18, 2025

The complainant alleged that during a wedding function, guests (including the petitioners) assaulted his brother, Gaurav, after being stopped from taking food to their cars

Gaurav suffered a permanent loss of vision in his left eye after being attacked with decorative glass tubes/candle stands

While the "main assaulter" (co-accused Kirtan Singh) allegedly used the glass tubes, the four petitioners were attributed roles involving the use of an iron pipe, an iron chair, and physical battery (punches/kicks) against other employees

The petitioners had been in custody for approximately two months, and their previous bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court in January 2026

Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of allegations and their period of custody

Whether the acts of the petitioners, occurring during a sudden and unpremeditated quarrel, justify continued incarceration under the charge of Section 109(1) of the BNS

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding bail

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 109(1) (Attempt to murder), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The court relied on the principle from *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb* and *State of U.P. v. Anurudh* that a bail hearing should not become a "mini-trial"

It also referenced *Ashish Yadav v. Yashpal* regarding the formation of common intention on the spur of the moment

The Court observed that the incident appeared to be a "sudden and spontaneous quarrel" rather than a premeditated attack

While acknowledging the gravity of the injuries—specifically Gaurav’s loss of vision—the Court noted that the "main assault" with glass tubes was attributed to co-accused Kirtan Singh, not the present petitioners

The Court highlighted that the roles attributed to these four petitioners (using chairs, pipes, or fists) were distinct from the life-threatening injuries caused by the glass tubes

Since the investigation was ongoing and the petitioners had no criminal antecedents and had already served two months in custody, the Court found that continued incarceration was not justified, especially as the question of "common intention" under Section 3(5) BNS remains a matter for trial

The petitioners were ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety, subject to conditions including joining the investigation, not leaving the country without permission, and not influencing witnesses

The Court clarified these findings were prima facie and would not prejudice the final trial