Regular bail granted for simple injuries despite criminal history where prior conviction is under appeal.

On October 24, 2025, the applicant allegedly used obscene language and assaulted one Raju Dewangan with fists and a knife during a festival program.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant threatened to kill the complainant and others present while waving the weapon.

Following the registration of Crime No. 647/2025 at Out Post Chikhali, Police Station Kotwali, the applicant was arrested on October 24, 2025.

The applicant has one prior criminal antecedent resulting in a conviction, which is currently under appeal (CRA No. 517/2024) where he was granted bail on November 26, 2024.

The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of his criminal antecedents and the nature of the injuries caused.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 296 (Obscene acts), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and 115(1) (Voluntarily causing hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court adhered to the principle that bail may be granted when injuries are non-life-threatening ("simple in nature"), the investigation is complete (charge-sheet filed), and the trial is expected to be protracted.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the applicant’s period of incarceration and the nature of the evidence.

the Court noted that the injuries sustained by the victims were "simple in nature"

Regarding the applicant's prior conviction, the Court observed that he had already been granted bail in the pending appeal of that case, indicating that his antecedents did not necessitate absolute detention in the present matter.

The Court further reasoned that since the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had been in jail since October 2025, further detention was unnecessary as the trial would likely take considerable time to conclude.

(i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory appearance before the trial court under penalty of Section 269 of the BNS; (iii) potential proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS for misuse of liberty; and (iv) personal presence during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.