Main assailant denied bail in Section 307 IPC case citing specific role and flight risk.

The prosecution alleged that on May 30, 2024, the applicant, alongside co-accused persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy to assault the victim, Lavkesh Rao Bhosale, at a dhaba

The applicant is identified as the main assailant who used a sharp-edged weapon to inflict injuries on the victim's face and neck with the intent to kill

Following the incident, the applicant absconded for approximately one year and was arrested on June 27, 2025

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing for parity with co-accused persons already granted bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given his role as the primary assailant and his conduct during the investigation

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), governing the grant of regular bail

Substantive liability was assessed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (disappearance of evidence), and 34 (common intention)

The principle that parity in bail is not absolute if the roles of the accused are specifically distinguishable, particularly regarding the severity of overt acts

The Court's reasoning centered on the gravity of the offense and the specific role attributed to the applicant.

It noted that the applicant was the "main assailant" who targeted vital parts of the victim (face and neck) with a sharp weapon, distinguishing his case from the co-accused who were granted bail

The Court emphasized that while granting bail to the co-accused, their roles had been specifically distinguished from that of the applicant

Additionally, the Court found the applicant's conduct—having absconded for a year before arrest—to be a critical factor, as it suggested a high likelihood that he might abscond again, thereby hampering the trial

The Court concluded that the combination of the nature of the allegations and the risk of flight made it an unfit case for bail

The holding affirmed that the specific role of a main assailant and a history of absconding are sufficient grounds to deny regular bail despite the grant of bail to other co-accused

The Court granted the trial court liberty to conclude the trial expeditiously