The court emphasized the requisite balance between personal liberty and the necessity of pre-trial detention, highlighting Article 21's protection against unjust deprivation of liberty.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [ BNSS ], seeking regular bail.

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:

“3. That the facts which led to file the present case are that the case was registered on the complaint of Lokesh Bansal S/o Daudayal R/o H.No. 448/1, Parvatiya Colony, Gali No.1, Faridabad. The contents of the complaint are being reproduced below for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court:-

To, The SHO, police station Saran, Sir, I live on the above said address and runs a Medical store by the name of Dosmed Pharma along with my partner Akshay Goyal, in partnership. That on 16.10.2024 at about 5 PM, a scooty rider hit his scooty to our bike intentionally and fled from the spot. That on dated 17.10.2024 due to this grudge, Amit Patwari along with his two friends, came in their car bearing no. HR-51-CC-2472, at our medical store. That I along with my partner Akshay Goyal and one boy named Amit were present there. That Amit patwari and his two friends came out of the car and started manhandling with me and Akshay Goyal and also said that if you mess with us we will kill you and all of them were under the influence of alcohol and ran away from there when people gathered there. A complaint was lodged with regard to this incident on 17.10.2024 at Police station. That within 10 minutes of reporting the incident, 19-20 boys armed with baseball bats, iron rods and sticks came there with intention and attacked me, my partner Akshay and one customer Gaurav with intention to kill. We all three suffered head injuries and injuries on other parts of body. We know Amit Patwari and Rahul Godara from these boys. They all were drunk. It is requested that FIR be registered against them. They all have threatened us to kill.”

4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

6. The counsel for the complainant opposes bail.

7. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to following portions of the status report, which reads as follows:

“G. The evidence against the petitioner:- It is submitted that petitioner got recovered stick used in commission of crime.

H. The role of petitioner:- It is submitted that petitioner has given blows to the victims by stick which was recovered from him along with other accused.”

REASONING:

8. No specific injury attributed to the petitioner, however, he was member of the unlawful assembly and named in FIR. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crim