Regular bail granted where injuries were simple, the chargesheet was filed, and the accused had no antecedents.

The applicant, Hemlata Chouhan, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 160/2026 registered at Police Station Jutmil, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 3 May 2026, the complainant, who was the applicant’s husband, went to the house where the applicant was residing with their minor son. The applicant and co-accused Mukesh Kurre allegedly abused and threatened him, after which Mukesh Kurre assaulted him with a hard or sharp object, causing injuries to his hands, wrist and head and resulting in loss of consciousness.

Medical examination and X-ray revealed a fracture of the hand bone, and the complainant was referred to Raipur for treatment of the head injury.

The applicant had been in custody since 27 June 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

This was her first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant, who was alleged to have abused and threatened the complainant and shared common intention with the co-accused, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Whether the nature of the injuries, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and filing of the charge-sheet justified grant of bail despite the seriousness of the allegations.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The Court considered the settled bail factors of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the nature of the injuries, the period of detention, criminal antecedents, and the stage of the proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) and 118(2) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The bail order was made subject to conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences of misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant had abused and threatened the complainant along with Mukesh Kurre and had shared common intention in the assault.

However, while assessing entitlement to bail, it noted that the injuries sustained by the complainant were found to be simple in nature, that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, that she had remained in custody since 27 June 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

These factors reduced the need for continued custodial detention, particularly since the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing the allegations and the seriousness of the offences against these mitigating circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Hemlata Chouhan was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring her not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed in the event of absence or misuse of bail.