Compromise Between Parties Does Not Warrant Bail Where Injuries are Grievous and Disclose Serious Assault.

On September 11, 2025, the applicant allegedly assaulted the victim, Sunil Shrivas, with a shovel following a roadside dispute near a liquor shop in Village Gadayinbahari

The victim sustained a head injury, and an FIR was registered under Section 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 9526 of 2025) was rejected on merits on November 24, 2025

The applicant filed this second bail application on the grounds of a material change in circumstances, specifically that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement and the victim had filed a "no-objection" affidavit

The applicant further argued that he had been in custody for over seven months and the injuries were not fatal

1. Whether the amicable settlement between the parties and the duration of pre-trial detention constitute a substantial change in circumstances to warrant the grant of regular bail following a previous rejection on merits

2. Whether the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim precludes the grant of bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S.

The court exercised its discretionary power under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) regarding the grant of regular bail

The court balanced the gravity of the offence under Section 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (relating to Attempt to Murder/Attempted Culpable Homicide depending on intent and injury)

It adhered to the principle that a second bail application requires a "substantial change in circumstances" for a different view to be taken once a prior application has been rejected on merits

The court evaluated the applicant’s claim of a "material change in circumstances" (the compromise and affidavit) against the medical evidence presented by the State

Despite the applicant's contention that the injury was not fatal, the court relied on the CT scan report which revealed a fracture in the left temporal bone, soft tissue swelling, and a scalp hematoma

The court reasoned that the gravity of the assault and the seriousness of the head injury outweighed the private settlement between the parties

Consequently, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any substantial new grounds that would justify overturning the previous merit-based rejection of bail

The Court held that the seriousness of the injuries (temporal bone fracture) and the lack of a substantial change in circumstances since the first rejection disentitled the applicant to bail

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously