Prima facie grievous injuries corroborated by medical evidence justified denial of regular bail.

The applicants—Kamlesh Anant, Ramesh Anant and Dageshwar Anant—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, 115(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, following earlier altercations between the parties, the applicants and other co-accused went to the complainant’s house at approximately 12:30 a.m. and assaulted Khilawan Das Gendre with lathis and an axe, causing injuries to his head, neck, shoulder and left hand; other intervening persons were also allegedly assaulted and a car window was damaged.

The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, that the assault with the axe and the head/neck injury were specifically attributed to co-accused Suryapratap, and that the medical record showed the injured to be conscious and stable, with discharge from hospital within five days.

They also relied on the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet on 7 July 2026.

The applicants had been in custody since 6 June 2026.

Whether the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the medical evidence and the material collected during investigation?

Whether the applicants’ alleged use of lathis, despite the axe assault being attributed to a co-accused, and the plea of a sudden quarrel and absence of intention to kill, justified the grant of bail?

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

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the prima facie material collected during investigation, the manner of assault and the seriousness of the injuries.

The alleged offences were assessed under Sections 351(3), 324(2), 296, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order; the Court stated that the plea of a sudden quarrel was a matter for consideration at trial and not sufficient, on the material before it, to warrant bail.

The Court found prima facie material connecting the applicants with the assault, specifically alleging that they used lathis or wooden sticks against the injured Khilawan Das Gendre.

The fact that the axe assault was attributed to co-accused Suryapratap did not eliminate the applicants’ alleged participation in the collective assault.

The medical evidence recorded multiple injuries to the head, neck, shoulder and hand, and subsequent medical documents prima facie disclosed a parietal-bone fracture, indicating grievous injuries and corroborating the prosecution case.

The injured’s stable condition at admission and subsequent discharge did not outweigh the medical indication of fracture.

The Court further held that the defence pleas concerning a sudden quarrel, lack of intention to kill, delay in the FIR and omnibus allegations were matters requiring appreciation during trial.

In view of the gravity and manner of the assault and the prima facie medical and testimonial material, the Court concluded that the applicants did not present a fit case for regular bail.

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