Specific attribution of role in victim’s statement justifies bail refusal despite omission in initial FIR.

On January 26, 2026, during a festival feast, an altercation occurred between the victim, Gaindu Ram Sonkar, and co-accused Khimesh Thakur over the use of abusive language.

It is alleged that Khimesh Thakur, the applicant (Vijay Kumar Gond), and others subsequently assaulted the victim with a knife and clubs, resulting in five incised wounds, including a serious injury to the chest.

While the applicant was not named in the initial FIR lodged by the victim’s father, his involvement was later detailed in a supplementary statement and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The applicant was arrested on February 22, 2026, and sought regular bail on the grounds of false implication and lack of specific overt acts.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given the gravity of the offense and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim.

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

It considered the substantive offenses defined under Sections 296 (Obscene acts), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 109 (Abetment), 3(5) (Joint liability), and 191 (Rioting) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The court adhered to the principle that bail may be denied based on the gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and the specific role attributed to the accused by the victim.

The Court examined the applicant's contention that his name was omitted from the FIR; however, it noted that the FIR was lodged by the victim's father, who was not an eyewitness to the incident.

The Court placed significant weight on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which specifically attributed an active role to the applicant in the assault.

Furthermore, the Court evaluated the medical evidence, which revealed the severity of the victim's condition, including five incised wounds and a critical knife injury to the chest that necessitated transfer to a private hospital for specialized treatment.

The Court reasoned that despite the applicant's lack of prior criminal antecedents, the specific allegations by the injured victim and the gravity of the assault precluded the grant of bail.

The first bail application was rejected.

The trial court was granted liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.