Criminal antecedents and specific overt acts in assault preclude bail despite prosecution witnesses turning hostile.

The applicants were arrested on August 17, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 384/2025 at Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, for allegedly assaulting a complainant due to previous enmity

The prosecution alleged that Applicant No. 1 (Aakash Yadav) assaulted the victim’s abdomen with a beer bottle, causing grievous injuries, while Applicant No. 2 (Vikram Jain) assaulted the victim using only hands and fists

Applicant No. 1 had ten prior criminal antecedents (seven pending), whereas Applicant No. 2 had two (one pending)

At the time of the application, a charge sheet had been filed, and two out of twenty prosecution witnesses had turned hostile

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

1. Whether Applicant No. 1 is entitled to bail despite being a habitual offender and the primary aggressor who inflicted grievous injuries

2. Whether the limited role of Applicant No. 2 and his period of incarceration justify the grant of regular bail

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail

It relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which mandates the consideration of criminal antecedents as a ground for denying or cancelling bail

Furthermore, the court considered the principles of individual role attribution and the potential for witness tampering when witnesses turn hostile during trial

The Court differentiated the cases of the two applicants based on the severity of their overt acts and their criminal histories.

Regarding Applicant No. 1, the Court noted that he was the primary assailant who used a weapon (beer bottle) to cause grievous injury

His record of ten criminal antecedents labeled him a habitual offender who had misused previously granted liberty

The Court dismissed the argument regarding hostile witnesses, noting that such developments could indicate tampering and do not automatically entitle a habitual offender to bail

Conversely, the Court observed that Applicant No. 2’s involvement was limited to physical assault without a weapon ("hands and fists")

Given that the charge sheet was filed and the trial was expected to be prolonged, the Court found that continued incarceration of Applicant No. 2 was unnecessary

However, the Court granted regular bail to Applicant No. 2, Vikram Jain @ Pappu, subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including mandatory attendance at all trial dates and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments

The Court directed that any breach of bail conditions or misuse of liberty should result in the initiation of proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)