Regular bail denied where a post-disarmament sword blow on a fleeing victim questioned private defence.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in FIR No. 77 dated 21.06.2025, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana, for offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 109 and 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 323, 506, 341, 148, 149, 307 and 325 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 20.06.2025, the complainant and others were attacked by a group of approximately 15–20 armed persons. The specific allegation against Karan Sharma was that he inflicted a sword blow on the rear side of the complainant’s head, while other accused caused injuries to the complainant and another injured person.

The petitioner claimed false implication and pleaded private defence, asserting that the complainant party had initially attacked him while he was playing cricket, that he sustained a sword injury to his hand, and that after snatching the sword from the assailant, he inflicted the blow while protecting himself.

He also challenged the alleged non-communication of the grounds of arrest on the basis that the arrest memo did not bear his signatures because of his medical condition.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, governing the High Court’s discretionary jurisdiction to grant regular bail.

At the bail stage, a plea of private defence involving disputed facts and appreciation of evidence ordinarily cannot be conclusively adjudicated; the Court must consider the nature of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the weapon used, the situs of the injury, and the surrounding circumstances.

The limits of private defence were material to the assessment of the bail claim, particularly where the alleged act occurred after the aggressor had been disarmed and was retreating.

The petitioner’s challenge concerning communication of the grounds of arrest required examination on the basis of the complete record and, by itself, was not sufficient for bail in the circumstances of the case.

The Court found that the petitioner’s own version weakened, rather than supported, his plea of private defence. According to that version, after sustaining an injury, he had disarmed the alleged aggressor by snatching the sword. Once the complainant party was allegedly retreating, the immediate danger had materially altered; therefore, the subsequent sword blow to the rear of the complainant’s head raised a serious question whether the petitioner had exceeded the permissible limits of private defence.

The alleged use of a sword against a vital part of the body, coupled with the petitioner’s specific role in an occurrence involving several armed persons and multiple injuries, warranted a cautious approach at the bail stage.

The fact that the injury was described as simple did not outweigh the manner of use of the weapon or the location of the injury.

Similarly, the issue regarding the petitioner’s signatures on the arrest memo involved factual examination and did not justify release on regular bail.

Considering the gravity of the alleged offence, the specific sword blow attributed to the petitioner, the vital part targeted, and the circumstances in which the blow was allegedly inflicted, the Court declined to exercise its discretion under Section 483 BNSS.

The regular bail petition was accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that the observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the merits of the case or the petitioner’s defence at trial.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of as infructuous.