Grant of Bail Refused Where Accused Inflicted Grievous Knife Injury With Intent to Kill

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS after being arrested on 07.01.2026 for allegedly stabbing the complainant's son, Rahul.

According to the prosecution, the applicant and a co-accused confronted the victim on 06.01.2026, accusing him of being a police informant.

While the co-accused restricted the victim, the applicant allegedly stabbed him in the abdomen with a sharp-edged knife.

The victim sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized for 17 days.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the incident actually involved the victim consuming alcohol, which the applicant merely objected to.

A charge-sheet was filed on 28.03.2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the injuries and the specific role attributed to him in the commission of the offense.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail, and Sections 109 (Attempt to murder) and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the principle that the nature and gravity of the offense, the severity of the victim's injury, and the recovery of incriminating weapons from the accused are vital factors in determining the fitness for bail during the pendency of a trial.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense, noting that the applicant was specifically accused of inflicting a life-threatening knife blow to the victim's abdomen.

The Court observed that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s claim, as the victim sustained "grievous" injuries necessitating prolonged hospitalization.

The court highlighted that the weapon used in the assault—a knife—was recovered directly from the applicant's possession, providing prima facie corroboration of the prosecution's case.

Although the applicant argued he only struck a single blow and had no intention to kill, the court found the specific role attributed to him was too grave to warrant release at this stage, despite the filing of the charge-sheet.

The High Court held that because the applicant played a specific and grave role in a violent assault involving a deadly weapon, he was not a fit candidate for enlargement on bail.

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.