Regular bail granted where injuries were non-vital, chargesheet filed, and trial likely prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 550/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Rampur, District Korba, for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused assaulted the complainant, Shivbalak Tomar, on the head with an iron rod, club, fists and other means while threatening him and his family and abusing them in filthy language.

The applicant claimed false implication, absence of any intention to kill, and contended that the complainant’s injuries were confined to a non-vital part of the body. He had been in custody since 15 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the fracture suffered by the complainant and the applicant’s previous criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the injuries sustained, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the likelihood of delay in trial.

Whether the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedent and the seriousness of the prosecution allegations warranted refusal of bail.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the nature of the injuries, the period of incarceration, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the probable time required for conclusion of the trial.

The offences alleged were under Sections 296, 351(3), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.

Bail may be granted without expressing any opinion on the merits, subject to conditions securing the applicant’s attendance and preventing misuse of the liberty.

The Court acknowledged the allegations of assault, threats and abusive conduct, as well as the prosecution’s objection based on the complainant’s fracture and the applicant’s antecedent.

However, it treated the fracture as being on a non-vital part of the body, noted that the applicant had remained in custody since 15 June 2026, and gave weight to the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On this cumulative assessment, and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of absence or proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.