The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of serious-looking charges under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when the factual record shows no direct involvement of certain accused and injuries are confined to non-vital body parts. This decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be justified by concrete risk factors, not speculative gravity of allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present bail application arises from F.I.R. No. 66/2026 registered at Police Station Kuchera, District Nagaur, Rajasthan, under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), and 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The case stems from a violent altercation between two groups of residents from village Bodva, resulting in multiple injuries to five individuals, including Mahender, Arjun Ram, Raju, Bhaga Ram, and another complainant.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on or about 16.05.2026 at village Bodva, District Nagaur
- Five applicants - Jagram, Chhagna Ram, Rajendra @ Raju, Ashok, and Dilip Ram Ghatela - were arrested on 17.05.2026
- The complainant’s medical report recorded injuries to five persons:
- Mahender: One grievous injury (fracture of radius bone), attributed solely to co-accused Suresh, not any of the applicants
- Arjun Ram: Fracture of radius bone (hand), classified as grievous but on non-vital part
- Raju: Fracture reported, but not on vital organ
- Bhaga Ram: Fracture of multiple phalanges of the fifth finger of the right hand, classified as grievous but non-life-threatening
- One other complainant: Minor injuries
- The applicants claim they were not assailants; instead, they allege the complainants initiated the violence, and two prior FIRs were lodged by them against the same parties
- No recovery of weapons or incriminating material has been attributed to any of the applicants
- The applicants have been in custody since 17.05.2026
Procedural History
- 16.05.2026: Alleged incident occurred
- 17.05.2026: Applicants arrested and lodged in District Jail, Nagaur
- 18.05.2026: F.I.R. No. 66/2026 registered at Police Station Kuchera
- 22.05.2026: Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur, rejected bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
- 11.06.2026: Present bail application filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Relief Sought
The applicants sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on grounds of lack of overt act, non-vital nature of injuries attributed to them, prolonged custody without recovery, and likelihood of prolonged trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied under Section 483 of BNSS when the record shows no overt act attributed to three applicants and the injuries attributed to the remaining two are on non-vital body parts, with no risk of evidence tampering or flight.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that:
- Only one grievous injury (to Mahender) was established, and it was attributed exclusively to co-accused Suresh
- All other injuries - fractures of the radius bone and finger phalanges - were on non-vital parts and not life-threatening
- Applicants 2, 4, and 5 had no overt act attributed to them in the charge sheet or medical report
- No recovery of weapons or incriminating material was made from any applicant
- The applicants have been in custody since 17.05.2026, and the trial is likely to extend over months or years
- The applicants had previously lodged two FIRs against the complainants, indicating they were not the aggressors
- No risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing exists
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed bail, arguing that:
- The nature of the incident involved multiple grievous injuries under BNS 2023
- The charges under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), and 329(4) are serious and attract potential imprisonment
- Granting bail might undermine public confidence in law enforcement
- The gravity of the offence alone justifies continued custody
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix with particular attention to the absence of direct attribution of any overt act against applicants 2, 4, and 5. It noted that the medical evidence did not link these three to any injury, and the injuries attributed to applicants 1 and 3 were fractures of the radius and finger phalanges - classified as grievous under BNS but not dangerous to life.
"The applicants are behind the bars since 17.05.2026, no recovery is to be effected from them, and the trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail."
The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the accused are not alleged to have committed acts that endanger life or involve weapons or organized violence. It distinguished this case from those involving intentional harm to vital organs, use of deadly weapons, or conspiracy. The Court further held that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial evidence of involvement or risk factors cannot be sustained.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The five applicants - Jagram, Chhagna Ram, Rajendra @ Raju, Ashok, and Dilip Ram Ghatela - are directed to be released on bail, provided each furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. They must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever called upon until trial completion. The Court clarified that its observations are strictly for bail purposes and shall not prejudice the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
No Overt Act = Strong Ground for Bail
- Practitioners must highlight in bail applications where specific accused are not named in the medical report or charge sheet as perpetrators of any injury
- Absence of overt act, even in group offences, is a decisive factor under Section 483 BNSS
- Courts are expected to scrutinize attribution of acts with precision, not rely on collective guilt
Non-Vital Fractures Do Not Automatically Justify Denial of Bail
- Fractures to fingers, radius, or non-vital limbs, though classified as grievous under BNS, do not equate to life-threatening injuries
- Bail should not be denied merely because an injury is legally "grievous" - the context of location and danger must be assessed
- This aligns with the spirit of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar on proportionality in pre-trial detention
Prolonged Custody Without Recovery Demands Judicial Intervention
- When no incriminating material is recovered and custody exceeds two weeks without progress, courts must weigh the cost of detention against the state’s interest
- Trial delay alone, if unexplained, becomes a factor favoring release
- Practitioners should routinely file bail applications under Section 483 BNSS where custody exceeds 15 days without substantial evidence linking the accused to the core offence
