Regular bail granted for simple injuries where investigation is complete and trial delay is anticipated.

The applicant, a 25-year-old male, was arrested on July 16, 2025, in connection with an incident occurring on June 26, 2025

The prosecution alleged that the applicant demanded money for alcohol from the complainant; upon refusal, the applicant threatened the complainant and assaulted him with a belt, causing injuries to the complainant's back, stomach, chest, and head

Consequently, the applicant was charged under Sections 119(1) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). A charge-sheet was filed on September 11, 2025

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that his only previous criminal record had been settled in Lok Adalat and that continued detention would adversely affect his future

1. 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 procedural status of the case

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant bail

The substantive offenses were considered under Sections 119(1) (causing hurt) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court also adhered to the principle that bail may be granted when the charge-sheet is filed and trial conclusion is expected to be delayed, provided the accused does not pose a flight risk

The Court balanced the State's objection—grounded in the applicant's alleged assault and criminal antecedents—against the mitigating factors presented by the applicant

It observed from the case diary that the injuries sustained by the complainant were "simple in nature"

The Court emphasized that the applicant had been in judicial custody since July 16, 2025, and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed

Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial was likely to be protracted. It reasoned that at the age of 25, the applicant’s continued detention alongside hardened criminals would be disproportionately prejudicial

The previous criminal antecedent was deemed less significant as it had been settled in Lok Adalat

The Court ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties

The holding was made subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory appearance at all trial stages (charge framing, evidence, and Section 351 BNSS statements), and a warning that any misuse of liberty would lead to proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS