Victims’ voluntary compromise and filing of charge-sheet justify grant of bail in assault cases.

The applicant, an 18-year-old, was arrested on December 18, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 392/2025 for allegedly threatening a complainant to withdraw a previous FIR

It is alleged that during the confrontation, the applicant assaulted two intervenors, Narayan Netam and Ankit Yadav, with a knife. Netam sustained grievous abdominal injuries, while Yadav sustained injuries to his thigh and hand

The applicant filed the first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his incarceration and the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the injuries and the voluntary compromise entered into by the victims

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 109(1) (punishment of abetment), 296 (obscenity/nuisance), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court also considered the procedural requirements of Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of statements and Sections 84, 209, and 269 of the BNS regarding non-appearance and breach of conditions

The court evaluated the gravity of the offense—specifically the use of a knife resulting in grievous injury—against the mitigating circumstances presented by the defense

A critical factor in the court's reasoning was that both injured victims, Narayan Netam and Ankit Yadav, had voluntarily entered into a compromise with the applicant and submitted "no objection" affidavits to the trial court regarding the grant of bail

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since December 18, 2025, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and custodial interrogation was no longer necessary

Despite the State’s concerns regarding the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the potential for witness tampering, the court concluded that since the trial would likely take a considerable period, prolonged incarceration was not warranted

The court directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness examination; (ii) he must appear personally on all fixed dates, including charge framing and statement recording under Section 351 BNSS; and (iii) any violation of bail conditions or failure to appear may result in proceedings under Sections 84, 209, or 269 of the BNS