Bail in heinous offences involving grievous injury and potential life imprisonment is not a matter of right. Courts must consider the gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment, and the prima facie existence of common intention under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 123 of 2025 dated 19.09.2025 registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(2), 333, 352 and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner, co-accused Kushal Kumar, Pankaj and Rinku trespassed into the informant’s house, and hurled abuses at the informant and her family members. The accused, Kushal Kumar, was holding a darat, and the petitioner was holding a darati. They gave beatings to Karnail Singh and Angrej Singh. The informant’s mother tried to intervene, but Kushal Kumar pushed her. He inflicted a blow on the neck of Karnail Singh with a darat, causing injury to the neck. The informant and her family members shouted for help, and the assailants ran away from the spot. The injured Karnail Singh was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred to a higher institution for further treatment. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The medical report showed a C/L/W on the left neck region measuring 5x3 centimetres, which was grievous in nature and dangerous to life. The police filed the chargesheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation. The petitioner is innocent, and he has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The investigation is complete. Chargesheet has been filed before the Court, and no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. No other FIR was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant was present in her home on 18.09.2025. Kushal Kumar, Manmohan Singh (the present petitioner), Pankaj and Rinku came to the informant’s house. They abused the informant and her family members. Kushal Kumar was armed with darat and petitioner Manmohan was armed with a sickle. They started beating Karnail Singh and Angrej Singh. The informant’s mother tried to rescue them, but Kushal Kumar pushed her. He inflicted a blow on the neck of Karnail Singh with a darat. Karnail Singh sustained bleeding injuries to his neck. The informant and her family members shouted for help, and the assailants ran away. The matter was reported to the police. The injured Karnail Singh was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred to a higher centre for his treatment. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. As per the report issued by the Medical Officer, the injured Karnail Singh had sustained C/L/W on the left neck region measuring 5x3 centimetres, which could have been caused by means of a sharp-edged weapon. The nature of the injury was grievous in nature and was dangerous to life. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The police also recovered the weapons of offence. These were sent to the SFSL, and as per the report of analysis, the DNA of injured Karnail Singh was found on darat recovered by the police. The police completed the investigation and filed the chargesheet before the Court on 16.12.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additi