Common Intention Not Presumed for All Participants in Sudden, Unpremeditated Fights Lacking Specific Lethal Roles

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 reception, a dispute arose when the complainant’s brother, Gaurav, stopped a guest from taking food to a car.

The situation escalated into a violent assault where Gaurav was attacked with decorative glass tubes used as knives, resulting in permanent loss of vision in his left eye

The petitioners were arrested between December 20, 2025, and January 8, 2026

They argued the fight was unpremeditated, triggered by the complainant’s brother, and that the "main assaulter" (co-accused Kirtan Singh) had already been granted bail by the Sessions Court

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

Whether the roles attributed to the specific petitioners justify continued incarceration under Section 109(1) of the BNS

The Court primarily considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the grant of regular bail

It referenced Sections 109(1), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding attempted murder, voluntarily causing hurt, and common intention

Precedents cited included *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb* and *State of U.P. v. Anurudh*, establishing that bail proceedings should not become a "mini-trial"

Regarding common intention, the court noted *Ashish Yadav v. Yashpal* and *State of Karnataka v. Battegowda*, which clarify that common intention can be formed on the spur of the moment

The Court observed that while the injuries to the victim were grievous (permanent loss of vision), the Sessions Court had previously noted the altercation was "sudden and not premeditated"

The High Court highlighted that the "main assaulter" who used the glass tubes was identified as co-accused Kirtan Singh, not the present petitioners

The status reports indicated that Rajveer, Gurmeet, and Gurcharan were involved in secondary assaults using pipes, chairs, or physical blows, rather than the life-threatening attack with glass tubes

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners had been in custody for approximately two months, had no criminal antecedents, and the investigation did not require their continued incarceration to prevent tampering, they met the criteria for bail

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

The Court clarified these findings were prima facie and would not prejudice the trial or the pending challenge to the co-accused's bail