Order :

CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J.

1. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with FIR No. 102/2025, registered at Police Station Mahaveerji, District Karauli, for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 109(1), 3(5), and 332(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the allegation against the applicant is that he inflicted an injury on the head of the injured Amar Singh. It is alleged in the FIR that the injury upon the head of injured Amar Singh was caused by a spade (phawda). However, the witnesses and the injured Amar Singh in their statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS have stated that the injury was caused by a stick (lathi). Thus, it is argued that there is a contradiction with regard to the fact of inflicting injury by a spade or a stick.

3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant/accused that in the injury report the doctor has stated injury No.1 to be of grievous nature and has opined that the possibility of death due to the said injury cannot be ruled out, in case the medical treatment is not given timely. Therefore the medical report is ambiguous. It is contended that if any injury or ailment is remained untreated it may cause death of any person. It is also argued that the investigating officer has submitted the medical report contrary to established medical principles with the intention of providing undue benefit to the complainant party and causing prejudice to the applicant/accused. Learned counsel further submitted that if the said injury inflicted upon the head of Amar Singh is not considered grievous in nature, then at the most, the offence would fall under Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is a bailable offence. It is contended that the concerned doctor has given vague report without any basis, apparently with the intention of converting the case into a non-bailable offence.

4. It has also been argued that on 01.07.2025, co-accused Tikam had sent objectionable messages to the applicant’s wife Smt. Karina on her mobile due to which, the alleged incident occurred. It is further submitted that the bail application of the co- accused Ashok has already been allowed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 15201/2025. The applicant is in custody since 24.10.2025. The charge sheet has already been filed, the trial will take time, and no other criminal case is pending against the applicant/accused. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or threatening the witnesses and he is ready to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Court. Thus the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for granting the benefit of bail to the accused/applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant inflicted a lathi blow on the head of injured Amar Singh, which the concerned medical officer has described as fatal to life. Considering the seriousness of the offence, it has been prayed that the bail application be rejected.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. In the present case, as per the FIR, the wife of the injured Amar Singh alleged that the applicant/accused assaulted her husband with a spade with an intention to kill him. However, during investigation, no spade was recovered from the applicant and instead a stick (lathi) was recovered. Thus, there is clean contradiction regarding the fact of inflicting injury by a spade or a stick. The concerned medical officer has prepared the injury report No. 44 dated 06.08.2025, wherein four injuries were mentioned to have been caused upon the body of injured Amar Singh. Injuries No. 1, 2, and 3 were stated to be caused by a