Serious criminal antecedents and specific evidence of knife assault justify denial of bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Crime No. 338/2025, registered for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others assaulted Mahfuj Sheikh with a knife on 4 July 2025.

The applicant’s first bail application was withdrawn and his second was dismissed on merits.

On this third application, he relied, among other things, on co-accused having been granted bail, the victim’s examination, completion of the investigation, and the expected delay in trial.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the injuries.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in the circumstances of the case, including the evidence against him and his criminal antecedents.

Whether the bail granted to co-accused persons supported a claim to parity for the applicant.

Section 483 BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The charged offences were under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 109 BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The order cites no precedent or further legal test; it determines the application by assessing the circumstances, including the alleged role of the applicant, the material on record, his antecedents, and the asserted parity with co-accused.

The Court considered the applicant’s five previous criminal antecedents and the medical evidence recording three stab wounds, described as grievous and life-threatening.

It also noted that the victim had named the applicant in the FIR and, in a statement under Section 183 BNSS, had specifically stated that the applicant assaulted him with a knife; a knife was recovered pursuant to the applicant’s memorandum statement.

In light of this material, the Court found the applicant’s case distinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail, notwithstanding the applicant’s submissions regarding the victim’s examination and trial delay.

The Court dismissed his third regular-bail application in connection with Crime No. 338/2025.