Regular bail granted where no test identification parade or specific injury attribution linked the accused to the assault.

On 8 March 2026, the complainant, Sanat Kumar Yadu, was allegedly assaulted by two unknown persons riding a black scooter near C.G. Dharmakanta, Urla, while he was returning home.

An FIR was registered against unknown persons for offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

During investigation, the applicant, Rajeshwar Netam alias Gopi, and a juvenile co-accused were apprehended. Their memorandum statements allegedly disclosed involvement in the offence, and a knife was recovered pursuant to the applicant’s memorandum statement.

The applicant contended that the memorandum attributed the actual knife assault to the juvenile, that no Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) was conducted, and that no specific injury was attributed to him.

He had been in custody since 9 March 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the offence was serious, the complainant had sustained injuries requiring treatment at AIIMS, and the knife had been recovered pursuant to the applicant’s statement.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Whether the absence of a TIP, the lack of material showing any specific injury attributable to the applicant, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial justified the applicant’s release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The Court considered the established bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the possibility of the accused’s identification and involvement, the existence of criminal antecedents, the stage of the proceedings, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the probable duration of trial.

The offences alleged were Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Although the prosecution alleged that the applicant and the juvenile co-accused assaulted the complainant with a knife, the FIR had initially been registered against unknown persons and no TIP was conducted after the applicant’s arrest to establish that he was one of the assailants.

The Court also noted that no medical report had been placed on record showing any specific injury attributable to the applicant.

Against the seriousness of the allegations and the alleged recovery of the knife, the Court weighed the applicant’s custody since 9 March 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take further time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found these circumstances sufficient to justify the grant of regular bail.

The Court directed his release in Crime No. 82/2026 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur, upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to appear before the trial court on every date as directed, to comply with proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail, and to remain personally present at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.