Regular bail granted based on simple nature of injuries, parity, and filing of charge-sheet.

The applicant, Sohan Sonkar, was arrested on January 10, 2026, in connection with an incident occurring on January 4, 2026, at a weekly market in Rajnandgaon.

Following a verbal altercation regarding the placement of vegetable stalls between the applicant's wife and the complainant’s daughter, the applicant allegedly issued threats and left for the police station to lodge a report.

Approximately 30–45 minutes later, while the applicant was absent, his juvenile son (Lalla Sonkar) allegedly attacked the complainant’s son with a knife, causing simple injuries.

The applicant was initially released on notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS but was re-arrested after Section 109(1) of the BNS (abetment) was added to the charges.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his alleged role in the offence and the period of incarceration.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantive charges were registered under Sections 296 (Obscene acts), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 118(1) (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 109(1) (Abetment), and 3(5) (Joint liability/Common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court also applied the principle of parity in bail matters and the doctrine of common intention, noting that mere presence or prior altercation does not automatically attract liability for a subsequent distinct act committed by another.

The Court observed that the incident transpired in two distinct phases: an initial verbal spat and a stabbing incident that occurred after a significant time gap during which the applicant had left the scene to go to the police station.

It noted that the weapon was recovered from the juvenile co-accused, who was the sole perpetrator of the physical assault.

The Court found merit in the argument that there was no evidence of a pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds to attract the doctrine of common intention.

The Court took cognizance of the fact that the injuries sustained by the victims were simple in nature and that cross-reports had been filed by both parties.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the investigation was complete, and a co-accused (the applicant's wife) had already been granted bail, the Court determined that continued custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The Court ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to conditions including: (i) non-seeking of adjournments during evidence; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Section 351 of the BNSS.