Regular bail granted where no recovery links the accused to the assault and trial will be prolonged.

On 26 April 2026, the victim, Padum Yadav, a watchman at Rakesh Jewellers, Durg, was allegedly attacked with a knife by one of three persons who attempted to snatch his mobile phone while he was on duty.

The victim sustained injuries to his stomach and hand. An FIR was initially registered against three unknown persons under Sections 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

During investigation, the applicant and two co-accused were apprehended on 12 May 2026 while allegedly travelling on an unregistered Activa scooter.

The applicant was arrested on 12 May 2026.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that the injuries were simple, the principal allegation of assault was against the juvenile co-accused, no incriminating article was seized from him, he had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed the application, primarily stating that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant, accused of offences under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 309(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS?

Whether the circumstances that the alleged knife was seized from the juvenile co-accused, no article was seized from the applicant, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had been filed justified release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which confers jurisdiction upon the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and detained in custody.

In exercising this discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused, the existence of recoveries, criminal antecedents, period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of the trial.

The prosecution offences were stated to be punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 309(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court considered the allegations and found that the alleged knife had been seized from the juvenile co-accused rather than from the applicant, and that no incriminating material had been recovered from the applicant’s possession.

It also took into account the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, his custody since 12 May 2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Since the trial was likely to take some time and the material circumstances did not justify continued detention at the pre-trial stage, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the discretionary relief of regular bail.

The High Court directed that Sanjay Kumar be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation, and to remain personally present 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 sent to the trial court for compliance.