Regular bail granted for simple injuries, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused.

The prosecution alleged that on the date of the incident, a dispute arose between the accused persons and the injured party regarding a demand for money to consume liquor.

It was alleged that the applicant assaulted the victim with a weapon, resulting in injuries.

The applicant, an 18-year-old, was arrested on December 27, 2025, and charged under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5), 118(1), and 119(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds that he was not named in the FIR, acted in self-defense, and that the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet already filed.

The State opposed bail, asserting that one victim sustained grievous injuries to the shoulder.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the injuries and the status of the investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which regulates the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

The substantive charges involved the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions regarding obscene acts, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and common intention, as well as the Arms Act regarding the use of prohibited weapons.

The Court also applied the principle of parity in bail, referencing the previous grant of bail to a co-accused under similar circumstances.

The Court evaluated the application by balancing the nature of the accusations against the period of detention and the progress of the trial.

It noted that the injuries sustained by the victims were simple in nature and that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the investigation was concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence.

Additionally, the Court invoked the doctrine of parity, noting that a co-accused, Vikas Sahu, had already been granted bail by the same Court in March 2026.

Given the applicant's age (18 years) and his continuous custody since December 2025, the Court determined that further incarceration was unnecessary.

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to release upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties.

The release is subject to strict conditions, including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory appearance at all trial stages, and a warning that misuse of liberty or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS.