Regular bail granted where nature of injuries and lack of premeditation suggest specific roles for co-accused.

The petitioners sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 533/2025 involving charges under Sections 109(1)/115(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The incident occurred on 18.12.2025 at "Divine Farms" during a wedding reception.

A dispute arose when the complainant’s brother, Gaurav, stopped guests from taking food to their cars.

The situation escalated into a physical assault where Gaurav was attacked with decorative glass tubes/candle stands, resulting in permanent loss of vision in his left eye.

The petitioners remained in custody for approximately two months.

Their previous bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations and their specific roles in the assault.

Whether the continued incarceration of the petitioners is justified given the investigation's progress and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Sections 109(1) (Attempt to murder), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the BNS.

It applied the principle from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and State of U.P. v. Anurudh, stating that a bail application is not a "mini-trial".

It also referenced Ashish Yadav v. Yashpal regarding the formation of common intention on the "spur of the moment".

The court observed that the altercation was "sudden and not premeditated," appearing to be a spontaneous quarrel.

While the injuries to the victim were grievous (permanent loss of vision), the court analyzed the specific roles: the "main assaulter" who used the glass weapon was identified as co-accused Kirtan Singh (already granted bail by the Sessions Court), whereas the petitioners were attributed secondary roles such as using an iron chair, an iron pipe, or punches and kicks.

The court noted that while Section 109 BNS carries life imprisonment, the other attributed offenses carry a maximum of seven years.

Since the investigation was ongoing and the petitioners had no criminal history, the court found no immediate necessity for further custodial interrogation or evidence showing they would tamper with witnesses.

The petitioners were ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety.

The relief was subject to conditions: joining the investigation, not leaving the country without permission, maintaining operational mobile numbers, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The court clarified these observations were limited to the bail stage and wouldn't prejudice the trial.