Specific Allegation of Inflicting Grievous Injuries With a Weapon Disentitles Accused to Parity in Bail

The applicant filed a first bail application following his arrest on February 18, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 21/2026

On February 10, 2026, during a wedding procession, a dispute arose regarding music being played on a D.J. system

It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons assaulted members of the wedding party with fists and kicks; specifically, the applicant is accused of attacking the victim, Gaurav Bareth, with a knife

The victim sustained a serious back injury requiring surgery and thirteen days of hospitalization

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail, lack of criminal antecedents, and the completion of the charge-sheet

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the specific allegations of using a weapon and the nature of the injuries caused

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 109(1) (punishment of abetment), 191(2) (rioting), 191(3) (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 296 (obscene acts/songs), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), corresponding to Sections 307, 147, 148, 294, and 506 Part-II of the IPC

The court applied the principle that bail may be denied where the role of the accused is specific, serious, and the medical evidence indicates the injuries were dangerous to life

The Court analyzed the severity of the allegations and the medical evidence presented by the State. While the applicant argued for parity with a co-accused granted bail in MCRC No. 5135 of 2026, the Court found the applicant's role distinguishable and more serious because he was specifically named in the FIR as the individual who used a knife

The Court observed that the medical records confirmed the victim underwent surgery for a "grievous" injury that was "dangerous to life"

Consequently, even though the charge-sheet was filed and the applicant had no prior record, the nature and gravity of the specific overt act—stabbing the victim in the back—outweighed the grounds for release

The bail application was rejected at this stage. However, the Court granted the trial court liberty to conclude the trial expeditiously