Specific attribution of overt acts and weapon recovery to co-accused warrants grant of regular bail.

On December 29, 2025, during a "Mandai Mela" (fair), a dispute over a minor pushing incident escalated into an altercation.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, acting with co-accused in furtherance of a common intention, assaulted Pavendra Kodappa and Nikhil Kumar Sahu by stabbing them with a knife.

The applicant was arrested on December 30, 2025.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the specific act of stabbing and the subsequent recovery of the weapon were attributed solely to a co-accused, Shabnam Bhandari.

The State Counsel confirmed that the charge-sheet had been filed and did not dispute the specific attribution of the knife assault to the co-accused.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering his role in the alleged offence and his period of detention.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 296, 109, 3(5), 191(2), and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court considered the principles governing bail, specifically the specific role of the accused in a joint criminal act, the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet), and the lack of criminal antecedents.

Although the prosecution alleged common intention under the BNS, the court observed that the primary overt act of assault with a deadly weapon (knife) was specifically attributed to co-accused Shabnam Bhandari, from whom the weapon was also recovered.

The court emphasized that the applicant had been in custody since December 30, 2025, had no prior criminal record, and that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet.

Reasoning that the trial would take significant time to conclude and noting the differentiation in the roles of the accused persons, the court determined that the applicant met the criteria for release.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions: he must not seek adjournments during witness evidence, must appear personally at every trial stage (opening, charge framing, and Section 351 BNSS statements), and must comply with Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS to ensure his presence, failing which the trial court may treat the default as an abuse of liberty.