Regular bail granted after compromise where injuries were simple and investigation was complete.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 398/2026 registered at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 119(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 9 July 2026, while the complainant was near an overbridge, the applicant, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, demanded money for liquor.

Upon refusal, he abused and threatened the complainant and assaulted him with fists and kicks, causing injuries to his elbow, back and lip.

The charge-sheet was filed on 27 July 2026.

The applicant relied on the parties’ compromise, the complainant’s absence of objection to bail, the simple nature of the injuries, the filing of the charge-sheet and the expected delay in trial.

He also disclosed two criminal antecedents from 2018 and 2024, of which the 2018 case had been disposed of.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the allegations and manner of assault, while the objector confirmed the compromise and stated that he had no objection to the grant of bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet and the possibility of delay in trial?

Whether the alleged compromise between the parties, the complainant’s absence of objection and the simple nature of the injuries justified the grant of bail despite the applicant’s criminal antecedents?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, the nature of the injuries, the parties’ compromise and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The offences alleged were under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3) and 119(1) of the BNS.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s attendance, prevent adjournment and preserve the integrity of the trial proceedings.

The Court found that the allegations involved an assault following a demand for money and threats, but noted that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple.

Although the applicant had two antecedents, one case had already been disposed of, and the charge-sheet in the present matter had been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

The Court also gave weight to the compromise and the complainant’s statement that he had no objection to bail.

Balancing the nature and gravity of the allegations against the period of detention since 9 July 2026, the completed investigation and the likelihood that trial would take time, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.