Serious knife-assault allegations and an unverified CCTV alibi warrant denial of bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 529/2026, registered for offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, on 15 May 2026, the applicant and two others assaulted the complainant and his cousin with a knife.

The applicant, arrested on 20 May 2026, denied involvement and relied on longstanding hostility between the families, earlier criminal cases, and CCTV footage said to place him at a temple at the time of the incident.

He also cited his age and medical condition.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the allegations were serious and that the alibi required verification.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the nature of the alleged knife assault and the material available at this stage.

Whether the applicant’s claims of false implication due to prior enmity and of being elsewhere, supported by submitted CCTV material, justified bail before that material was properly examined.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the Court to consider an application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, and the material available on record.

It observed that prior enmity may furnish a basis for false implication but may also provide a motive for the alleged occurrence; likewise, a pen drive or representations containing CCTV material cannot, without proper examination, conclusively establish an alibi.

No precedent was cited.

The Court treated the alleged knife assault and the specific role attributed to the applicant as relevant considerations.

It declined to regard prior hostility as sufficient, by itself, to establish false implication, noting that it could also support the prosecution’s allegation of motive.

The CCTV-based alibi had not been properly examined, and its submission therefore did not conclusively establish the applicant’s absence from the scene.

On the material then available, the Court was not persuaded to grant bail.