Regular bail denied where prima facie material implicated the applicant in a fatal group assault.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 414/2025 registered at Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 332(A), 332(B), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 28 December 2025, the applicant and co-accused persons, armed with clubs and axes, entered the complainant’s house, forcibly took his son Hiteshwar Tarak to Bazar Chowk, assaulted him with clubs, axes, bricks and stones, and thereafter left his body near Kopra-Borsi Road.

The applicant had been in custody since 29 December 2025, and the charge-sheet had been filed. He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he was innocent and that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s alleged role as the main accused, and the rejection of a co-accused’s bail application.

Whether the applicant, accused of participating in a group assault resulting in the death of Hiteshwar Tarak, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the anticipated delay in trial outweighed the gravity of the offence and the prima facie material indicating his involvement.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS to determine whether the applicant should be released on regular bail.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the prima facie material collected during investigation, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

The offences alleged were those punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 332(A), 332(B), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 103(1) of the BNS.

The Court also considered parity and consistency with the rejection of the co-accused’s bail application by the High Court.

No separate judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the allegations against the applicant were specific and serious: he was alleged to have participated in forcibly removing the deceased from his house and assaulting him with weapons and other objects, causing head injuries that resulted in death.

The investigation material prima facie supported the prosecution’s version and indicated the applicant’s involvement as a principal accused.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 29 December 2025, these factors were insufficient, at the bail stage, to outweigh the gravity of the alleged group assault and resulting death.

The Court further noted that the bail application of a co-accused had already been rejected, and found no sufficient basis either to disbelieve the prosecution case or to conclude that the applicant had been falsely implicated.

The bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was accordingly rejected.

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