Inconsistent identification and amicable settlement between parties justify grant of bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerning Crime No. 74/2026

The applicant was accused of offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 109(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following an incident on February 18, 2026, where the complainant, Lucky Pawar, was assaulted with a knife

Initially, the FIR did not name the applicant; the complainant first attributed the assault to one "Kartik" before subsequently naming the applicant, Yash Jogi, in a later statement

The applicant was arrested on February 20, 2026, and a knife was recovered at his instance

A final report has been submitted following the completion of the investigation, and the parties have reportedly filed a compromise petition before the trial court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s identification of the assailant and the subsequent amicable settlement between the parties

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which governs the powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC)

The court considered the substantive offences defined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 296(b) (Obscene acts and songs), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 109(1) (Attempt to murder), and 3(5) (Joint liability/Common intention)

The court also relied on established judicial principles regarding bail, including the assessment of the applicant's criminal history, the likelihood of recidivism, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the potential for the accused to flee from justice

The court observed that the complainant’s identification of the applicant was inconsistent, as the initial FIR and dying declaration first named another individual before implicating the applicant

This inconsistency created a prima facie doubt regarding the applicant's complicity

the court noted that the investigation was complete with the final report submitted, and the complainant/objector expressed "no objection" to the bail due to an amicable settlement

Regarding the applicant’s background, the court found that although one criminal antecedent was noted, he had no previous convictions and possessed stable family roots, reducing the risk of absconding or recidivism

The court emphasized that the continued incarceration of the 19-year-old applicant was unnecessary as the trial would take time to conclude and there was no evidence of potential witness tampering

The Court held that given the socio-economic status of the applicant and the lack of substantial criminal history, there were no compelling reasons for continued detention

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at trial, refraining from committing further offences, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses