Regular bail warranted where injuries are simple, charge-sheet filed, custody substantial, and trial likely prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 480/2025 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg, for an offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 26 April 2025, the complainant visited the applicant’s residence to demand the return of household articles. Following an altercation, the applicant allegedly assaulted the complainant with fists and kicks and thereafter attacked him with a sharp-edged knife, causing injuries to his head, neck, nose, eyes, face and hands. The applicant allegedly fled when the complainant’s friends and local residents arrived, and the injured complainant was taken to hospital before lodging the report.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), asserting false implication, seizure of the weapon, completion of medical and forensic investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, medical conditions requiring regular medication, custody since 27 April 2025, and the likelihood of delay in trial.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had allegedly used a knife with an intention to cause death, causing serious bleeding injuries in the presence of eyewitnesses, although the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the nature of the allegation under Section 109(1) of the BNS, the alleged use of a knife, and the stage of the proceedings.

2. Whether the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, simple nature of the injuries as recorded in the MLC, and the anticipated delay in trial justified release on 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. The alleged substantive offence was Section 109(1) of the BNS.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the apparent seriousness of the injuries, the stage of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, and the likely duration of the trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s appearance, prevent delay, and protect the integrity of the trial.

Although the prosecution alleged a knife attack accompanied by an intention to cause death and relied upon eyewitnesses, the Court found that the MLC described the injuries as simple in nature.

The investigation had substantially progressed because the weapon and relevant medical and forensic material had been collected, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court further considered that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 27 April 2025, had undergone a substantial period of incarceration, and that the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing these factors against the seriousness of the accusation, the Court concluded that continued pre-trial detention was not warranted, while imposing safeguards to ensure the applicant’s participation in the proceedings and prevent misuse of bail.

The bail conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present; to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates; to comply with proceedings relating to non-appearance and 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.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.