Regular bail is justified where injuries are simple, the complainant has no objection, and trial is likely to be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested on 25 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 451/2026 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, for an offence under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 24 May 2026, following a quarrel concerning the complainant’s picking up passengers near Naya Bus Stand, the applicant abused and assaulted the complainant, followed him to Bakra Market in an auto-rickshaw, threatened to kill him, and attacked him with a knife. The complainant allegedly sustained injuries to his abdomen and right leg while attempting to ward off the assault.

The applicant denied the allegations, contending that he had been falsely implicated, that there were no independent witnesses or recovery of a weapon, and that the injuries were simple and not on any vital part of the body. He further submitted that the complainant had expressed no objection to bail, the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, the offence was triable by a Magistrate, and the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had allegedly assaulted the complainant with a knife.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offence under Section 109 of the BNS.

Whether the applicant’s custody since 25 May 2026, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, simple nature of the injuries, and the complainant’s no-objection justified 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 alleged offence was under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the accusation and injuries, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the complainant’s position, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Bail was made subject to conditions designed to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournment-related delay, and restrain misuse of the liberty granted.

After examining the case diary, the Court found that the complainant’s injuries were simple in nature and that the complainant had expressed no objection to the applicant’s release on bail.

The Court also considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 25 May 2026, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State relied on the allegation that the complainant had been attacked with a knife, the Court concluded that the overall circumstances justified bail at this stage.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or proclamation, 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.