Grant of Bail Where Injuries are Simple and Charge-Sheet is Filed Despite Criminal Antecedents

The applicant, Vimal Verma, filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on December 21, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused Shivam Verma and others, abused and assaulted the complainant, Naman Loniya, due to prior enmity.

Specifically, it was alleged that Shivam Verma used a sharp object (button knife) to inflict injuries while the applicant assaulted the complainant with hands and fists.

The medical report indicated two lacerated wounds caused by a sharp and hard object, characterized by the defense as "simple in nature."

The applicant has been in custody since the date of the incident.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the injuries and the progress of the investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 296 (Obscene acts/songs), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The court balanced the gravity of the offense against the principles of liberty, the nature of injuries sustain by the victim, and the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet).

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the factual circumstances.

It noted that while the applicant has two criminal antecedents (one under the Excise Act, already disposed of, and one under the IPC, pending trial), the primary weapon used in the instant case—a button knife—was seized from the co-accused/child in conflict with law, Shivam Verma, not the applicant.

The medical evidence categorized the wounds as "simple in nature," which mitigated the severity of the alleged assault under BNS provisions.

Furthermore, the court observed that the charge-sheet has already been submitted to the competent court, suggesting that the applicant's further detention is unnecessary for investigation purposes.

Given that the applicant has spent over two months in jail and the trial's conclusion is not imminent, the court found the applicant's plea for liberty justified.

The holding is contingent upon strict conditions, including the mandate that the applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The applicant must appear on all fixed trial dates.

The applicant must remain present for charges and statements.

Failure to comply with bail conditions allows the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty.