Hostility of key injured witnesses and parity with co-accused entitle applicant to regular bail.

This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 122/2025.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since March 25, 2025, for alleged offenses under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5), 109, and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that a dispute regarding the digging of a rainwater channel led to the applicant assaulting the victim, Dharmendra, with a sword.

While the applicant's previous bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn, the third application was dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to ensure the evidence of the injured witnesses.

Subsequently, the injured witnesses, Dharmendra (PW2) and Krishnabai (PW3), were examined but did not support the prosecution's case.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the hostility of material witnesses and the principle of parity.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court regarding bail.

It further relied on the legal principles governing bail, specifically the gravity of the offense, the period of incarceration, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the socio-economic status of the accused.

The Court also considered the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Bhola, Omprakash, and Ravi had already been granted bail in 2025.

The Court observed that the incident originated from a minor altercation between neighboring agriculturists which escalated into a scuffle.

A significant development in the trial was that the injured witnesses, Dharmendra (PW2) and Krishnabai (PW3), failed to support the prosecution’s allegations during their examination.

The Court found that there was no report of criminal antecedents against the 25-year-old applicant, who had already spent over a year in custody.

By applying the law to these facts, the Court reasoned that the risk of the applicant fleeing from justice, recidivism, or tampering with the remaining evidence was minimal.

The Court further noted that since the co-accused had already been released and the trial would take more time to conclude, there was no "compelling reason" to justify continued incarceration.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions, including the applicant's regular appearance at trial, the prohibition of further criminal activity, and the prohibition of any attempt to influence witnesses or evidence.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and shall not affect the final merits of the trial.