Regular bail denied considering the gravity of assault and life-threatening head injuries inflicted.

On July 14, 2025, the applicant allegedly arrived at the complainant’s shop on a motorcycle and threatened the victim, Iqbal Mohammad, over a prior dispute

Approximately ten minutes later, the applicant returned armed with a sharp sword-like weapon (Chapda) and repeatedly struck the victim on the head with the alleged intention to kill

The victim sustained grievous and dangerous injuries to the parietal region, necessitating surgery and a 15-day hospitalization

The applicant was arrested on July 15, 2025, and the weapon, motorcycle, and clothing were seized following his memorandum statement

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, arguing his innocence and noting that nine out of eighteen witnesses had already been examined during the trial

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given the nature of the injuries and the stage of the trial

The court exercised its discretionary power under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 296 (Obscene acts/songs), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation), and 109 (Attempt to murder/punishment of abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The court applied the principle that the gravity of the offense, the nature of the injuries, and the weapon used are critical factors in determining bail eligibility

The court weighed the applicant's period of incarceration (since July 15, 2025) and the progress of the trial against the severity of the criminal act.

It observed that the assault was not spontaneous but followed an initial confrontation, indicating premeditation

The court emphasized the medical evidence, noting that the victim suffered "grievous and dangerous injuries" to the parietal region of the head, which required surgical intervention and prolonged hospitalization

While the applicant argued that the trial was halfway complete with nine witnesses examined, the court found that the "nature and gravity of the offence" and the "intention to cause death" outweighed the procedural arguments for release

The court concluded that the material available in the case diary established a serious threat to life, making it an unfit case for the exercise of discretionary bail

It held that the applicant is not entitled to regular bail due to the severity of the assault and the life-threatening nature of the injuries inflicted

the court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously