Rejection of Regular Bail Where Accused Caused Life-Threatening Injuries with a Sharp Weapon

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that on May 8, 2025, the applicant, along with co-accused persons, forcibly entered the complainant's house.

It is alleged that while co-accused held the victim (Pratyush), the applicant repeatedly stabbed him in the stomach and chest with a knife, causing deep injuries.

The victim suffered liver damage and required surgery.

The applicant argued for parity, noting that co-accused Gajendra Yadav and Pankaj Kohde had been granted bail, and emphasized his incarceration since May 9, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the injuries and his period of incarceration.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the applicant when compared to co-accused who were previously enlarged on bail.

The Court considered the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding bail.

The applicant was charged under Sections 109(1) (punishment of abetment), 333 (organized crime), 338 (punishment for person of unsound mind—likely a clerical error in text for grievous hurt/attempt), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), 111(2)(B) (organized crime), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).

The primary legal principle applied is that the gravity of the offense and the specific role of the accused—specifically the use of a weapon and the severity of the medical outcome—are primary factors in determining bail eligibility.

The Court distinguished the applicant's role from that of the co-accused who were granted bail.

While the defense argued parity and slow trial progress (only one of fifteen witnesses examined), the Court focused on the specific medical evidence and the violent nature of the act.

The record indicated that the applicant was the primary assailant who "repeatedly stabbed" the victim with a sharp knife.

The Court emphasized the "nature and gravity of the offence," specifically noting that the victim's liver was damaged, necessitating major surgery.

Consequently, the Court found that the severity of the injuries caused by the applicant outweighed the arguments for parity or the duration of his pretrial detention.

The bail application of Bhuwan Harpal was rejected.

The Court directed a copy of the order to be sent to the trial court for information.