Distinguishable role from co-accused causing grievous injury justifies grant of regular bail.

The applicant filed a first bail application after being arrested in connection with Crime No. 02/2026 for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant, Basant Das, alleged that the main accused, Lallu Raj @ Ajay Yadav, assaulted him with a wooden stick and fists, causing the loss of an eye.

The specific allegations against the applicant were that he stopped the complainant’s vehicle and verbally abused him.

The applicant has been in custody since January 7, 2026.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the nature of the allegations and his specific role in the offense.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 296 (obscene acts), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 115 (voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 117(3)(1) (grievous hurt), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court applied the principle of "distinguishable roles," where the gravity of the overt act of the applicant is weighed against that of the co-accused to determine bail eligibility.

The Court analyzed the specific overt acts attributed to the applicant versus the co-accused. It noted that while the complainant suffered a grave injury (loss of an eye), the prosecution's case indicated that the co-accused, Lallu Raj @ Ajay Yadav, was the one who used the wooden stick.

The applicant’s involvement was restricted to stopping the vehicle and using hands/fists.

Consequently, the Court found the applicant's case to be "distinguishable" from that of the main accused who caused the grievous injury.

Further, the Court took into account that the applicant had been incarcerated since January 7, 2026, and that the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time to conclude.

The Court imposed several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) he must appear personally or through counsel on all trial dates; (iii) any misuse of liberty or failure to appear may lead to proceedings under Section 209 BNS and Section 84 BNSS; and (iv) personal presence is mandatory for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.