Repeat bail is denied after prior merits dismissals where injured witnesses support specific knife-assault allegations.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli, for offences under Sections 109(1), 296 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 15 January 2026, a dispute arose at a pan shop near a school premises during a programme celebrating Guru Ghasidas Jayanti. When the injured person, Suraj Kurre, attempted to intervene, the applicant and juvenile co-accused allegedly assaulted him with a knife, causing serious injuries.

The applicant’s first and second bail applications had been dismissed on merits on 29 April 2026 and 2 July 2026, respectively.

In the third bail application, the applicant relied on his custody of more than seven months, the grant of bail to the juvenile co-accused, and the fact that only seven of nineteen prosecution witnesses had been examined; however, the injured witness and his brother had supported the prosecution case.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the earlier dismissals and the supporting testimony of the material witnesses.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the earlier dismissal of two bail applications on merits.

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, partial progress of the trial, and the grant of bail to juvenile co-accused justified reconsideration of bail, notwithstanding the specific allegation of knife injury and the supporting depositions of the injured witness and his brother.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It also considered the statutory offences alleged under Sections 109(1), 296 and 3(5) of the BNS.

In deciding a repeat bail application, the Court assessed whether there were sufficient circumstances warranting reconsideration after the earlier bail applications had been dismissed on merits, while examining the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the accused, and the available prima facie evidence.

The Court treated the application as a repeat bail application and gave substantial weight to the fact that the applicant’s first two applications had already been rejected on merits.

Although the applicant relied on prolonged custody, partial examination of prosecution witnesses, and bail granted to juvenile co-accused, the Court found that the allegation against him was specific: he had allegedly caused injuries to the victim with a knife.

The injured witness and his brother had supported the prosecution case in their depositions, providing material evidence against the applicant.

Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the applicant’s attributed role, and the absence of any circumstance sufficient to overcome the earlier orders, the Court declined to grant bail.

The third bail application was accordingly rejected.