Regular bail granted where victim files affidavit of non-presence and applicant lacks criminal antecedents.

The applicant, a 20-year-old M.Sc. Botany student, was arrested on January 15, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 892/2025

The prosecution alleged that on November 24, 2025, the applicant and co-accused persons assaulted the complainant and his friends with hands, feet, and a key, while a co-accused, Golu Pathan, allegedly attacked one Adarsh Sahu with a knife

The applicant sought regular bail, contending he was falsely implicated, citing his ongoing university examinations and a lack of criminal antecedents

Notably, the injured party, Adarsh Sahu, submitted an affidavit stating the applicant was not present at the scene and expressed no objection to the bail

The State opposed the application, noting that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed and highlighting the violent nature of the offense

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and his personal circumstances.

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

The substantive offenses were registered under Sections 109 (punishment of abetment), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 191(2) & 191(3) (rioting), 296 (obscene acts), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The Court also referenced procedural safeguards and penalties for bail default under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNS/BNSS framework

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the evidentiary material and the applicant’s background.

Although the State emphasized the seriousness of the knife injury inflicted by a co-accused, the Court observed that the primary victim (the injured) had filed an affidavit explicitly exonerating the applicant of presence at the crime scene

The Court further balanced the interests of justice with the applicant's academic career, noting his status as a student with ongoing M.Sc. examinations and the absence of prior criminal records

Given that the applicant had been incarcerated since January 15, 2026, and the trial was expected to be protracted, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted despite the pending charge-sheet

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at all trial stages (including charge framing and statement recording), and must comply with procedures under the BNS/BNSS regarding presence, or risk the revocation of bail

The Court ordered the trial court to be notified immediately for compliance