Regular bail is warranted where injuries are simple, the accused has no antecedents, and the charge-sheet is filed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 63/2026 registered at Police Station Hardibazar, District Korba, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 25 April 2026, during a marriage procession, a drunken altercation took place between the complainant, Roshan Yadav, and the applicant, during which the applicant assaulted the complainant with a bamboo stick.

The complainant was admitted to hospital on 26 April 2026 and discharged on 27 April 2026.

The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged on 2 May 2026 despite the incident having occurred on 25 April 2026, that the complainant had initiated the quarrel, and that the assault was committed in self-defence.

He also relied on the medical and CT-scan reports, absence of FSL examination and blood evidence on the alleged weapon, his lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 3 July 2026.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had caused grievous injuries to the complainant.

1. Whether the applicant had made out a case for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in relation to the offences alleged under the BNS?

2. Whether the nature of the injuries, the applicant’s custodial period, absence of criminal antecedents, and filing of the charge-sheet justified release on bail pending trial?

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.

The alleged offences were governed by Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the prima facie nature and seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the injuries, whether the injuries were inflicted on a vital part, the accused’s criminal antecedents, the stage of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of custody.

The grant of bail was subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court found that the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature and had allegedly been caused on a non-vital part of the body.

It further noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and he had remained in judicial custody since 3 July 2026.

These circumstances reduced the justification for continued pre-trial detention, particularly as the investigation had concluded and the trial could take considerable time.

Although the State alleged that grievous injuries had been caused, the Court’s assessment of the medical circumstances favoured the applicant.

On this basis, the Court held that the applicant had made out a fit case for regular bail.

The High Court directed that Milan Yadav be released in Crime No. 63/2026 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 him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation.