Grant of Bail Permissible in Cross-FIR Cases Involving Mutual Injuries and Completed Investigation

The prosecution alleged that on January 10, 2026, the applicant and co-accused intercepted the complainant’s car, used obscene language, and assaulted the complainant and others with fists and a sharp object over a poultry farm dispute.

A charge-sheet has already been filed.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on February 9, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 07/2026.

Cross-reports were filed as parties from both sides sustained injuries.

The applicant has five criminal antecedents, though most resulted in acquittal, compromise, or minor fines.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the custodial period, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the nature of the cross-complaints.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The applicant was charged under Sections 296(2) (obscene acts), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court also referenced procedural sections of the BNSS, specifically Section 269 (non-appearance of accused), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (failure to appear), and Section 351 (recording of statement) for bail condition compliance.

The court observed that the incident involved cross-reports, indicating that both the complainant’s and the applicant’s parties sustained injuries during the scuffle.

Although the State Counsel pointed out five criminal antecedents, the court noted the applicant's explanations: one acquittal, two compromises, and one minor fine under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Significant weight was given to the fact that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed, meaning the applicant’s further detention was not required for investigation.

Furthermore, given that the applicant had been in custody since February 9, 2026, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the court determined that the merits of the case warranted the grant of bail subject to strict conditions to ensure trial participation.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must be present for every hearing (personally or through counsel), and must appear in person for framing of charges and recording of statements.

Any violation of these terms allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Sections 269 or 209 of the BNSS.