Settlement with witnesses and co-accused parity justify bail despite criminal antecedents and serious head injuries.

The applicant, Deepak, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail

He was arrested on 06.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 143/2025 for allegedly assaulting neighbors with a wooden stick (Lohangi) following a dispute involving chili powder, resulting in bone fractures to the victims

The applicant's first bail application was dismissed on 30.01.2026

Since then, four material prosecution witnesses have been examined, and a compromise petition was filed before the trial court on 11.02.2026

The applicant has remained in judicial custody for over three months

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS 2023, considering the progress of the trial and the nature of the accusations

2. Whether the existence of criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offense outweigh the factors favoring the applicant’s release, such as parity and the conclusion of material witness testimony

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

It adhered to the principle of parity in bail, noting that a co-accused (Savita) had already been granted bail

The court also evaluated the principles regarding the prevention of recidivism and the risk of tampering with evidence versus the right to liberty, specifically noting that the absence of previous convictions for major offenses weighs in favor of the applicant

The court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offense and five criminal antecedents, several factors favored the applicant.

First, the investigation is complete and the final report has been submitted

Second, there is a significant change in circumstances since the first bail rejection, as six material witnesses have now been examined, reducing the likelihood of the applicant influencing the remaining evidence

Third, the court noted that the dispute was essentially a "free fight" between neighbors that has since been amicably settled through a compromise petition

Fourth, the court applied the rule of parity as co-accused Savita was already released

Finally, the court reasoned that the applicant’s socio-economic status as an agriculturist with family responsibilities minimized the risk of him fleeing from justice

The court held that there was no compelling reason to continue incarceration given the trial's progress and the lack of flight risk

The release is subject to five specific conditions, including regular court appearance and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or committing further offenses

This order is effective until the end of the trial unless breached