Regular bail denied where prima facie evidence showed the accused inflicted multiple grievous knife injuries and trial was progressing.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 199/2025 registered at Police Station Rajnandgaon Kotwali for offences under Sections 109(1), 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, on 28 April 2025, three persons stopped the injured, Rakesh Pal, while he was driving a trailer, abused and threatened him, and assaulted him with a knife, causing multiple incised wounds to his buttock, sacral region, thigh and finger.

The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. During investigation, the involvement of the applicant allegedly emerged from the memorandum statements of persons apprehended in another crime. A scooty and ₹350 were seized from the applicant, and the charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

Charges had been framed on 2 August 2025; four of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the applicant had remained in custody since 29 April 2025.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged knife assault, and the nature of the injuries?

Whether the stage and progress of the trial, including the applicant’s custody since 29 April 2025 and examination of four out of ten prosecution witnesses, justified release on bail?

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

It also considered the offences alleged under Sections 109(1), 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, together with the established bail considerations of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the prima facie material, the role attributed to the accused, the severity of the injuries, criminal antecedents, and the progress of the trial.

The Court found prima facie material indicating that the applicant was the principal accused who had allegedly assaulted the injured with a knife.

It gave significant weight to the medical material recording multiple incised wounds on different parts of the injured’s body and treated those injuries as grievous in nature, notwithstanding the applicant’s submission that they were simple.

The Court also considered the applicant’s single criminal antecedent and the seriousness and manner of the alleged assault.

Although four of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined, the Court held that the trial was progressing and was presently at the prosecution-evidence stage; therefore, the pendency of the trial did not, in the circumstances, outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie case.

The grounds relating to the absence of a test identification parade and non-recovery of the knife were not accepted as sufficient to warrant bail at that stage.

The bail application was accordingly rejected.

The Court directed the trial Court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.