Regular bail granted where CCTV evidence indicates lack of direct involvement and investigation is concluded.

The applicant, owner of the Baglamukhi Bhakta Niwas Hotel, was arrested on January 26, 2026, following a violent altercation at his establishment

The dispute began when patrons Kamal and Dharmendra complained to hotel staff regarding food service (Dal without Tadka), which escalated into a physical scuffle

It was alleged that the applicant and his staff assaulted the complainants and their relatives (Manohar and Samrath Singh) using a knife, steel spoon, and wooden sticks

The applicant contended that CCTV footage proves he arrived only after the scuffle had begun and that his role was limited to ejecting the parties from the hotel

The investigation is complete, and the final report (charge sheet) has been filed

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the nature of the injuries and the completion of the investigation

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

The court considered the gravity of the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 109(1) (Punishment of abetment), 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 3(5) (Joint liability)

Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the procedure for witness examination during trial

The court observed that the investigation was complete and the final report had been filed, meaning the applicant's continued incarceration was not required for evidence collection

It noted that the injuries sustained by the victims were "simple in nature" and did not affect vital organs

The court found prima facie merit in the applicant’s defense that CCTV footage placed him at the scene only after the initial altercation

Regarding the applicant's criminal history, the court determined that a single 2011 conviction under the Public Gambling Act resulted only in a fine and did not constitute a "substantial criminal past" that would justify denying bail

The court concluded that there was no significant risk of the applicant fleeing from justice or recidivism, given his socio-economic status and family responsibilities

The holding is subject to several conditions, including that the applicant shall not commit similar offences, shall attend all hearing dates, and shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence

The court specified that this order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless bail conditions are breached