Completed investigation and simple injuries justify bail despite a prior criminal antecedent.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 221/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 109, 296, 351(3), 118(1) and 119(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and three others demanded money from the complainant for liquor and, when he refused, assaulted him and a bystander with a knife

The medical reports described the complainant’s shoulder injury as simple and recorded a lacerated wound on the bystander’s buttocks.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the charge-sheet had been filed, he had been in custody since 12 June 2026, and trial would take time; he also disclosed one criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations, injuries, criminal antecedent, custody period and stage of investigation

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the High Court and Court of Session with power to grant bail.

In exercising that power, the Court considered the circumstances of the alleged offence, the nature of the injuries, the applicant’s criminal antecedent, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likely time for trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the applicant and co-accused attempted to extort money at knife point and assaulted the complainant and a bystander.

It nevertheless noted that the medical reports recorded simple injuries, while also taking account of the applicant’s one prior antecedent.

Because the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 12 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that bail was warranted.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him to make himself available for police interrogation when required, refrain from influencing persons acquainted with the case, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on the merits.