Regular bail granted based on parity and non-vital nature of injuries despite prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Gyan Rathore, sought regular bail after being arrested on January 5, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 09/2026 registered at Police Station Urga, District Korba.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, assaulted a complainant and his nephew with stones, bricks, and a knife, resulting in incised wounds on the nephew's left shoulder and finger.

The applicant was charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act.

At the time of the application, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had been in judicial custody for approximately three months.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given that the injuries were on non-vital parts and a co-accused had already been granted bail.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court also relied on the principle of parity in bail matters and the assessment of the nature of injuries (vital vs. non-vital parts) to determine the gravity of the offence.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that although a knife was recovered from the applicant, the medical evidence did not indicate that the injuries—located on the shoulder and finger—were dangerous to life or inflicted on vital organs.

The Court further emphasized the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Manish Das had been granted bail previously in March 2026.

Regarding the applicant's three prior criminal antecedents, the Court accepted the applicant's explanation that he was already on bail in those matters.

Given that the investigation was complete with the filing of the charge-sheet and the trial was expected to be lengthy, the Court found that the applicant’s continued incarceration was no longer necessary.

The Court held that the nature of the injuries and the filing of the charge-sheet warranted the grant of bail, provided the applicant adheres to strict conditions, including mandatory attendance at trial and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Court specifically warned that any default or misuse of liberty would lead to proceedings under Sections 269, 84, or 209 of the BNS/BNSS.