Recidivism and grievous nature of weapon injury preclude regular bail despite victim's "no objection" and co-accused's parity.

The applicant, Satyam Sonkar, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He was arrested on January 25, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 50/2026.

The prosecution alleges that on January 24, 2026, the applicant and co-accused, acting with common intention, assaulted Ritik Jaiswal with a knife, causing a grievous injury to his abdomen.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail by the Sessions Court, the absence of a seized weapon from his person, and a "no objection" statement filed by the victim.

The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the applicant has six criminal antecedents from 2025, including two convictions.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS considering the nature of the offense and his criminal history.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail.

The principle that bail is a discretionary relief contingent upon the "nature & gravity of the offence" and the "material available in the case dairy".

The court emphasized the relevance of a "criminal antecedents" when assessing the fitness of a candidate for bail, particularly under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court balanced the applicant's arguments regarding the "no objection" from the injured party and the lack of weapon recovery against the severity of the medical evidence.

The Court noted that the knife remained lodged in the victim's abdomen and required surgical removal, and the Query Report confirmed the injury as "grievous in nature".

Most critically, the Court found the applicant’s criminal record—consisting of six antecedents within a single year (2025), including two prior convictions—to be a significant factor weighing against the grant of liberty.

The court concluded that the gravity of the attempt on life, coupled with the applicant's habitual offender status, necessitated continued detention despite the "no objection" from the victim.

The Court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.