Regular bail granted where medical evidence negates internal injuries and investigation is complete.

The applicants were arrested on November 2, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 743 of 2025 for allegedly assaulting the complainant and his father with sticks following a dispute over "old matters" and land during Govardhan Puja

The prosecution alleged that the applicants used filthy language, issued death threats, and caused injuries to the complainant’s arm and head

The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, citing a counter-complaint filed by the Yadav community against the complainant's side that the police failed to register

Following the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court while the applicants remained in judicial custody

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the medical evidence and the stage of the criminal proceedings

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail

The substantive offences alleged were under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 281 (rash driving/riding on a public way), 296 (obscene acts and songs), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 3(5) (joint liability), and 109 (punishment of abetment)

The Court’s reasoning centered on the discrepancy between the prosecution's allegations and the medical evidence.

While the prosecution claimed the victim sustained grievous head injuries, the Court noted that the Non-Conviction Threshold (NCT) medical report confirmed no internal injuries were found

The Court also took cognizance of the underlying land dispute between the parties, which suggested a context of mutual quarrel rather than unprovoked aggression

Furthermore, since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary, especially as the applicants had been in jail since November 2, 2025

The holding was predicated on the lack of internal injuries and the completion of the investigation

The Court imposed several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a mandate for the applicants to be present at all trial stages (framing of charges, recording of statements), and a warning that any misuse of liberty or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita