Regular bail granted considering superficial injuries, clean antecedents, prolonged custody, and likely trial delay.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 67/2026 registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 109(1), 296 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Vishu Sarthi, was in a relationship with Chand, the applicant’s sister.

On 15 February 2026, Chand allegedly called the complainant to accompany her to a fair.

When the complainant reached Village Kataud near the Mahamaya Temple, the applicant allegedly abused him, poured diesel over him, and set him on fire with an intention to kill him.

The complainant escaped by jumping into a nearby pond, sustaining superficial burn injuries.

The applicant submitted that he had been falsely implicated, that no incriminating article had been seized from him, that there was delay in lodging the FIR, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

He had remained in custody since 24 February 2026 and argued that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had attempted to kill the complainant by setting him on fire.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegation that he attempted to kill the complainant by setting him on fire.

Whether the applicant’s custody period, absence of criminal antecedents, superficial nature of the injuries, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) to consider the applicant’s request for regular bail.

The prosecution allegations concerned offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 296 and 351(3) of the BNS.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the apparent nature of the injuries, the applicant’s period of custody, his criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

The bail order was also made subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegation that the applicant had poured diesel on the complainant and set him on fire, an allegation opposed by the State as demonstrating an attempt to kill.

However, while deciding the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits, it weighed the fact that the complainant’s burn injuries were superficial, the applicant had been in custody since 24 February 2026, he had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take some time to conclude.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court found the case appropriate for grant of regular bail, subject to safeguards intended to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent abuse of the concession.

Akash Karsh was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring attendance at trial, no unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences in the event of absence or misuse of bail.

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the order.