Common Intention Not Presumed for All Participants in Spontaneous Assault Lacking Premeditated Lethal Role

The four petitioners sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 533/2025 (PS Maidan Garhi) involving offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The incident occurred on 18.12.2025 at "Divine Farms" during a wedding reception when a dispute escalated between guests and the banquet hall management over guests taking food to their cars.

It is alleged that the guests assaulted Gaurav Tanwar, inflicting severe injuries including permanent loss of vision in his left eye using decorative glass tubes as weapons.

The petitioners were arrested between December 2025 and January 2026 and had spent approximately two months in custody.

Their previous bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering their specific roles and the nature of the injuries inflicted?

2. Whether the acts of the petitioners prima facie establish common intention under Section 3(5) of the BNS to justify continued incarceration for an offence carrying life imprisonment?

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

Substantive charges were considered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), specifically Section 109(1) (Attempt to murder/equivalent to 307 IPC), Section 115 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 3(5) (Common intention/equivalent to 34 IPC).

The court relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and State of U.P. v. Anurudh to affirm that bail proceedings should not become "mini-trials".

It further noted Ashish Yadav v. Yashpal regarding the principle that common intention can be formed on the spur of the moment.

The Court observed that while the injuries to the victim were "permanent and grievous", the Sessions Court had already noted the altercation was "sudden and not premeditated".

Upon reviewing the status reports, the Court found that the "main assaulter" who used the glass tubes was identified as co-accused Kirtan Singh, not the present petitioners.

The specific roles attributed to the petitioners involved using an iron pipe (Rajveer), an iron chair (Gurmeet), punches and kicks (Gurcharan), or being present with a candle stand (Walayati).

The Court reasoned that since the direct life-threatening attack (with glass tubes) was not prima facie attributed to these four individuals, and they had no criminal antecedents and had spent two months in custody, continued incarceration was not justified.

The Court declined to conclude on the applicability of Section 109 BNS or common intention at this stage, leaving it for the trial court.

The Court held that given the roles attributed to the petitioners and the spontaneous nature of the fight, they were entitled to relief.

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.

It was clarified that these observations would not prejudice the ongoing investigation or the pending challenge to the co-accused's bail.