Regular bail granted where alleged role is unsubstantiated by CCTV footage and no physical injury caused.

The applicant, a 19-year-old labourer, sought regular bail following his arrest on October 22, 2025, in connection with a road rage incident

According to the prosecution, an altercation occurred between two groups over "inappropriate driving," which escalated when co-accused Umang allegedly stabbed the deceased, Sandeep, multiple times

The specific allegation against the applicant is that he pulled out a knife and chased one Bharat, though Bharat sustained no injuries

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated as an associate of Umang and noted that CCTV footage failed to substantiate the claim that he chased Bharat with a weapon

The investigation is complete, and the final report has been submitted

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his specific role in the incident and the lack of corroborating electronic evidence

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 103(1) (Murder), 296 (Obscene acts), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Section 25 of the Arms Act

The court further relied on the judicial principle that bail may be granted when there is no likelihood of recidivism, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice, especially considering the socio-economic status of the accused and the duration of trial

The court observed that the primary assault resulting in death was attributed to co-accused Umang, whereas the applicant's role was limited to an alleged chase that resulted in no injury

Crucially, the court noted that the prosecution’s claim regarding the applicant's use of a knife was not substantiated by the seized CCTV footage

The court found substance in the applicant's argument that since the investigation was complete and the final report filed, his continued incarceration was unnecessary

It further reasoned that because the applicant is a young labourer with no previous convictions—despite one pending criminal antecedent—there was no compelling evidence suggesting he would flee or influence witnesses

The court held that in the absence of a substantial criminal past and considering the specific role of the applicant compared to the main assailant, further incarceration was not warranted

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at trial, non-involvement in similar offences, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses