Specific eyewitness allegations and the gravity of the offence warranted denial of bail.

The appeals challenged orders refusing bail to the appellants, who were in custody in connection with Crime No. 1009/2025, registered following the fatal assault of Harish Shayar @ Bhaka.

The prosecution alleged that the incident arose from prior enmity and involved multiple accused; the appellants faced charges under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Ajay Gendre argued that he was not named in the initial Dehati Merg Intimation, no weapon or incriminating article had been seized from him, the charge-sheet had been filed, and certain co-accused had received bail.

Chudamani Sahu and Rahul Sahu submitted that the fatal injury was attributed to co-accused Yogesh Sen, that the allegations against them concerned injuries to other persons, and that a cross-FIR had been registered.

The State opposed bail, relying on eyewitness statements naming the appellants.

Whether the appellants should be granted bail in appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, having regard to the allegations and material on record.

Whether the fact that the fatal injury was attributed to a co-accused, rather than the appellants, warranted granting bail to the appellants.

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the Special Judge’s bail orders.

The Court assessed the bail applications by considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the material in the case diary, the eyewitness accounts and the specific roles attributed to the appellants.

The prosecution’s case included charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act.

The order cites no precedent or further express legal test.

The Court considered the case diary and noted that three eyewitnesses had specifically named the appellants in statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS.

Although the fatal injury was attributed to Yogesh Sen, the Court observed that the appellants were alleged to have assaulted other injured persons; it therefore did not treat the distinction in the alleged roles as sufficient to justify bail.

Given the eyewitness material, the roles attributed to the appellants and the seriousness of an incident resulting in a death, the Court declined to grant bail.