Regular bail granted under BNSS where injuries were simple and charge-sheet was already filed.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 34/2026.

The prosecution alleged that on February 20, 2026, the applicant and co-accused Salim Khan assaulted the complainant, Waseem Qureshi. Specifically, it was alleged that the applicant caught the complainant from behind while Salim Khan inflicted a knife injury on the complainant’s waist.

The applicant was arrested on February 21, 2026.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the injuries were simple, no weapon was recovered from the applicant, and he had no prior criminal record.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the nature of the injuries and the progress of the trial.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing regular bail procedures.

Substantive offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Section 296 (Obscene acts and songs), Section 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), Section 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), Section 109 (Attempt to murder), and Section 3(5) (Joint liability).

The court balanced the gravity of the offense against the nature of the injury (simple hurt) and procedural progress (filing of the charge-sheet) to determine the necessity of continued incarceration.

The Court evaluated the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically noting that while the applicant was allegedly involved in the altercation, the medical evidence indicated that the injury sustained by the victim was simple in nature.

The Court observed that the investigation had concluded to the extent that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

Furthermore, the applicant had been in custody since February 21, 2026, and given that the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, the Court found that prolonged pretrial detention was not warranted.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s strict compliance with procedural mandates, including attending all court dates personally or through counsel, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and appearing for specific trial milestones such as the framing of charges under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court directed that any default in these conditions could lead to the revocation of liberty under Section 269 or Section 209 of the BNS.