Regular bail is justified for simple injuries where trial is likely to be protracted.

The applicant was arrested on 29 July 2026 in connection with Crime No. 144/2026 registered at Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba, for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 118(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 13 July 2026, the complainant and his companion were involved in a dispute with two persons at a liquor-shop snack outlet. The accused allegedly abused, threatened and assaulted them, including by using a sharp object, causing injuries to the complainant’s cheek, neck and temple and injuries to his companion’s eye, chest and waist.

The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged after a two-day delay, that he had been falsely implicated, and that the complainant’s injury was caused by a fall while he was intoxicated.

The applicant had been in custody since 29 July 2026, was a labourer, and had two previous criminal cases, one disposed of and one pending.

This was his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegations, the injuries, the period of custody and the likelihood of delay in trial?

Whether the applicant’s previous criminal antecedents constituted sufficient grounds to deny bail?

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

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the period of custody, the nature of the injuries, the court competent to try the offences, the likelihood of delay in trial and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The offences alleged were under Sections 296, 351(3), 118(1), 238 and 3(5) of the BNS; the applicant’s counsel submitted that Sections 296, 351(3) and 238 were bailable, while Section 118(1) was non-bailable and the case was triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The Court examined the case diary and accepted that the applicant had remained in custody since 29 July 2026, that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature, and that the case was triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

It also considered that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s two criminal antecedents, the Court did not treat them as determinative, particularly since one case had already been disposed of and the prosecution material, as considered at the bail stage, did not justify continued detention.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

The High Court directed that Indra Kumar Yadav @ Damu be released in Crime No. 144/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.