Regular bail may be denied where serious charges and reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation threaten an ongoing trial.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in FIR No. 138/2025 registered at P.S. Sector 23, Dwarka, initially under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

After investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 27 September 2025 and offences under Sections 118(2) and 190(1) BNS were added.

The prosecution alleged that, after consuming alcohol with the complainant and victim, the applicant attacked the victim during a scuffle with a sharp metal object, causing injuries that resulted in the surgical removal of one kidney.

Earlier bail applications had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 15 October 2025 and 18 November 2025.

Whether the applicant had established grounds for grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the materials collected during investigation.

Whether the stage of the trial and the apprehension of witness intimidation justified refusal of bail notwithstanding filing of the chargesheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the claimed absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS, corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, as referred to in the application.

The substantive allegations arose under Sections 118(1), 118(2), and 190(1) BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court held that it must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the character of the evidence, the possibility of absconding, the accused’s circumstances, societal repercussions, and the likelihood of witness intimidation or evidence tampering, without conducting a detailed assessment of the probability of conviction.

The Court relied on Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Deepak, (2023) 13 SCC 549, which states that bail is discretionary and must be granted judiciously, while reasonable apprehension of witness tampering or threats to the complainant, prima facie support for the accusation, and the genuineness or frivolity of the prosecution are relevant considerations.

The Court found that the allegations involved a serious assault causing damage to a vital organ and requiring surgical removal of the victim’s kidney.

Although the chargesheet had been filed, the trial remained at an initial stage: there were twenty-two prosecution witnesses, only the complainant had been examined, and the victim was yet to testify.

The Court gave particular weight to the alleged threats by the applicant’s family to the complainant and victim and held that release at that stage could adversely affect the trial and create a reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation.

The applicant’s reliance on custody, absence of antecedents, intoxication, and the alleged hostility of the complainant did not constitute a material change in circumstances warranting departure from the earlier bail order.

The Court therefore declined to undertake a detailed evaluation of the defence or prosecution evidence at the bail stage.

Considering the gravity of the accusation, the serious injury to the victim, the incomplete examination of material witnesses, and the reasonable apprehension of witness influence or intimidation, the applicant was held not entitled to regular bail at that stage.

The application was dismissed, while the Court clarified that its observations were confined to adjudication of the bail application and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.