Generic Allegations Cannot Sustain when Nature of Injury Is Unclear: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has fortified the liberty of accused persons in assault cases, ruling that omnibus allegations and the absence of clear medical findings regarding the nature of injuries under the new criminal code are sufficient grounds for granting bail. In a decisive intervention, the Bench set aside a lower court's order, emphasizing that detention cannot be prolonged when specific overt acts are not attributed to individual accused persons and the trial is expected to be lengthy.

Justice Sandeep Shah, presiding over the single-judge bench, heard the criminal appeal challenging the denial of bail to three appellants. The Rajasthan High Court scrutinized the transition to the new criminal statutes, focusing on the classification of 'grievous injury' and the necessity of specific evidence to justify continued incarceration during the pendency of trial.

Key Takeaways

Standard for Grievous Injury

Medical reports must explicitly satisfy the criteria of disfigurement or fracture as mandated by modern penal provisions to classify an injury as grievous for bail considerations.

Curbing Omnibus Allegations

General allegations against multiple accused without specific overt acts weaken the prosecution's case for custodial necessity.

Priority of Trial Duration

In cases where the trial is expected to take a sufficiently long time, the right to liberty outweighs the state's interest in pre-trial detention, provided the offences are not of an extreme nature.

Medical Evidence and Procedural Delays

The Rajasthan High Court observed significant gaps in the prosecution's reliance on the injury report. While the injury was labeled 'grievous', the Court noted that the mandatory statutory thresholds, such as disfigurement or fracture, were not explicitly established in the current material.

Regarding the conduct of the appellants and the nature of the accusations, the Rajasthan High Court observed: “Having considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the appellants, the case in hand is of a single injury, none of the circumstances as provided under Section 116 of the BNS have been dealt with for deciding the nature of the injury, the appellants are behind the bars since 30.07.2026, and the trial of the case will take a sufficiently long time to conclude, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail.”

Ratio

Pre-trial detention is not warranted where the prosecution fails to attribute specific overt acts to multiple accused persons (omnibus allegations) and where medical evidence does not clearly substantiate the 'grievous' nature of an injury as defined under Section 116 of the BNS, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude expeditiously.

Background

The dispute originated from F.I.R. No. 97/2026 registered at Police Station Dungla, involving charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 3(5) of the BNS. The appellants had moved a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Chittorgarh, which was rejected on August 3, 2026.

Challenging this under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the counsel for the appellants argued that the injured witness sustained only a single injury and there was no evidence of fracture or permanent disfigurement required to invoke stricter penalties. The State opposed the bail citing the nature of the offences. The Rajasthan High Court, however, found the lack of specific allegations and the duration of custody (since July 2026) sufficient to allow the appeal and grant bail, clarifying that these observations are limited to the bail adjudication and shall not prejudice the final trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1481/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:44867
Case Title: Lalit Mogya & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. J.S. Rajpurohit
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 22047