Regular bail denied where serious sharp-weapon neck injury and applicant’s involvement emerged during investigation.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 62/2025 registered at Police Station Kirandul, District Dantewada, for offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

On 16 October 2025, the injured person allegedly came to the complainant’s house and fell near the door, with blood emerging from his throat.

He was taken to hospital, and the complainant initially lodged an FIR against an unknown person.

During investigation, the applicant was implicated and arrested on 17 October 2025.

The charge-sheet was subsequently filed, and the applicant remained in judicial custody.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR, had no specific role or direct involvement, and that the alleged assault with an axe was attributed to co-accused Bhima.

It was further submitted that no weapon or incriminating article had been recovered from him, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that none of the 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The applicant also claimed approximately ten months and thirteen days of incarceration and no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the victim had sustained a grievous neck injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon and that the applicant’s involvement had emerged during investigation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations, the grievous neck injury, and the material collected during investigation?

Whether the applicant’s non-mention in the initial FIR, alleged absence of a specific overt act, completion of investigation, period of custody, and the pendency of trial justified the grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The prosecution case involved Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, as recorded in the FIR and charge-sheet.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the seriousness of the injury, and the material available in the case diary.

No judicial precedent was cited or expressly relied upon in the order.

The Court acknowledged that the FIR was initially lodged against an unknown person and that the applicant’s involvement surfaced subsequently during investigation.

However, it considered the prosecution material showing that the victim had sustained a grievous injury to the neck caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

Weighing the seriousness and nature of the injury against the applicant’s grounds relating to delayed implication, lack of recovery, completion of investigation, prolonged custody, and the unexamined prosecution witnesses, the Court held that the allegations and material on record did not justify release on regular bail.

It held that, having regard to the grievous neck injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon and the applicant’s involvement as reflected in the investigation, the applicant was not entitled to regular bail.

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