Bail jurisprudence is built case by case, and refusals teach as much as grants. On 24 September 2026, in Bharat Singh v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 937/2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court dismissed a regular bail application arising from a drunken altercation in which the applicant allegedly struck the victim with a sharp metal object, damaging a kidney so severely that it had to be surgically removed. The order illustrates how the three classic factors — gravity, stage of trial and witness safety — operate under the new BNS provisions for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.
The allegation
The FIR arose from an altercation on 8 May 2025. The prosecution case is that the applicant, in a state of intoxication, struck the victim with a sharp metal object, inflicting an injury that damaged a kidney and necessitated its surgical removal. The applicant sought regular bail before the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the familiar grounds: the occurrence was a sudden quarrel, there was no premeditation, and continued custody served no purpose.
The court’s calculus
Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the application on a combination of three factors, each of which deserves attention from bail practitioners:
None of these factors is decisive alone. Delhi courts routinely grant bail in hurt cases after the injured witness has deposed, and equally refuse it early where the injury is catastrophic. The refusal here is expressly anchored to “that juncture” of the trial — language that leaves the door open for a renewed application once the material evidence is recorded.
Section 118 BNS: the IPC mapping
For practitioners still translating between codes, Section 118(1) of the BNS corresponds to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and Section 118(2) to Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by such means). Section 190 BNS carries forward Section 149 IPC’s principle of constructive liability for offences committed by an unlawful assembly. The bail consequences track the old law: hurt simpliciter by dangerous means remains bailable-adjacent in practice, while grievous hurt with permanent disability approaches the gravity of an attempt-to-murder allegation in judicial assessment.
Building the renewed application
A refusal of this kind is best treated as a roadmap. The renewed plea should be timed after the injured witness and the public witnesses to the occurrence have been cross-examined; it should document the custody period and any trial delay; it should propose conditions that answer the intimidation concern — residence away from the locality, no-contact undertakings, regular reporting to the investigating officer. Where the medical record permits, the defence should also test the causal chain between the blow alleged and the surgical outcome, since the gravity assessment rests on it.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which provisions of the BNS were involved?
Sections 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, corresponding broadly to Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC — along with Section 190 (offence by a member of an unlawful assembly). The application was under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Does intoxication help or hurt a bail plea?
Voluntary intoxication is no defence to the offence, and at the bail stage it cuts both ways: it may negate premeditation, but it also signals a propensity for uncontrolled violence. In this case it did not persuade the court to grant bail against the gravity of a lost organ.
Why does the stage of trial matter?
Where the trial is at a preliminary stage and material witnesses — especially the injured — are yet to depose, courts are slower to release an accused who may influence them. Bail pleas often succeed later, once the star witnesses have been examined, because the intimidation risk recedes.
Is a refusal of bail final?
No. A fresh application lies on change of circumstances — completion of the victim’s testimony, prolonged incarceration, delay in trial not attributable to the accused, or medical grounds. Successive applications are maintainable but must candidly disclose earlier refusals.