Non-mention in FIR does not warrant bail where an injured witness implicates the accused and medical evidence shows grievous injuries.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 98/2026 registered at Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, for offences under Sections 351(3), 324(2), 296, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute between two related families, the applicant and co-accused persons came to the complainant’s house at about 12:30 a.m. and assaulted the complainant’s father and other family members with lathis, a danda and a tangiya.

The complainant’s father allegedly sustained injuries to his head, neck, shoulder and hand, including a fracture of the parietal bone; the accused also allegedly damaged a car

Blood-stained soil, clothes and weapons were seized during investigation pursuant to memorandum statements. The applicant was arrested on 6 June 2026, the investigation was completed, and the charge-sheet was filed

The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, had no specific overt act attributed to him, the incident arose from a sudden quarrel, and the injured person was discharged after treatment within five days

The State opposed bail, relying on the injured witness’s statement, the seriousness of the injuries and the seizure of weapons and blood-stained clothes

1. Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR but was implicated in the injured witness’s statement, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS

2. Whether the seriousness of the assault, the grievous injuries, the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons and blood-stained articles justified rejection of bail

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail

It considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the prima facie material, the medical evidence, the alleged participation of the applicant, and the recoveries made during investigation as relevant factors in determining entitlement to bail

The Court also applied the principle that the absence of an accused’s name in the FIR does not, by itself, warrant bail where subsequent statements, including that of an injured witness, prima facie disclose participation

The defence concerning a sudden quarrel and the precise nature of the injuries was treated as a matter for trial rather than for final determination at the bail stage

The Court found that the prosecution case prima facie attributed participation in the assault to the applicant along with the co-accused

The injured Khilawan Das Gendre had sustained multiple injuries, and the medical documents indicated a fracture of the parietal bone, thereby prima facie establishing grievous injuries and corroborating the seriousness of the alleged assault

The seizure of blood-stained soil, the injured persons’ clothes, weapons and blood-stained clothes allegedly belonging to the accused supplied additional prima facie support to the prosecution case

Although the applicant was not named in the FIR and no specific blow was attributed to him, the Court held that these circumstances did not place him on a better footing because his participation was alleged in the injured witness’s statement.

The rejection of bail applications filed by the named co-accused was also considered, though the Court independently assessed the applicant’s case

The applicant’s contentions regarding the sudden quarrel, discharge of the injured person and the absence of a specific overt act were considered matters requiring evaluation during trial

The application for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly rejected

The trial court was permitted to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court