Third bail application rejected as gravity of offense and incriminating victim testimony outweigh trial delay.

The applicant filed a third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the rejection of two previous applications on 25.09.2025 and 03.12.2025.

The prosecution alleged that on 11.07.2025, during an altercation regarding a monetary dispute, the applicant repeatedly stabbed the complainant, Rahul Gendre, and his brother in the abdomen with a sharp iron knife, causing serious/grievous injuries that required surgery.

The applicant has been in custody since 13.07.2025.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of prolonged trial, noting that only 3 out of 12 witnesses have been examined.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail despite the rejection of two earlier applications on merits and the gravity of the allegations.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Section 296 (Obscene acts and songs), Section 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), Section 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), Section 118(2) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and Section 3(5) (Joint liability/Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court observed that there were no "new or good grounds" to entertain this third application, as the previous two rejections were based on the merits of the case.

The Court noted that the applicant is the "main assailant" who used a sharp-edged weapon to inflict life-threatening injuries on the victims' vital organs (abdomen), necessitating surgical intervention.

The Court found that although only 3 of 12 witnesses had been recorded, those witnesses (including the injured party) had already deposed against the applicant and supported the prosecution’s case.

The gravity of the offense and the corroborative nature of the evidence recorded thus far outweighed the duration of the applicant's incarceration.

The High Court held that due to the applicant being the primary perpetrator of a violent assault causing grievous injury, and given the lack of change in circumstances since the previous rejections, bail could not be granted at this stage.

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